Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For New Forest, in the room of Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. Pym.]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Dairy Farmers

Mr. Monro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the current level of returns to dairy farmers; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): The level of returns to milk producers is a matter for the Farm Price Review, at which all the relevant factors are taken into account.

Mr. Monro: Will not the Minister agree that the modest increase given at the Price Review has been entirely swallowed up by rising costs this summer; and that dairy farmers are going through a very difficult lime at this moment?

Mr. Hughes: Milk production has been running high this year, as the hon. Member knows, and there are good prospects of a recovery in prices during the winter. A prediction I can make is that average prices for the year April-March should be about the same as last year.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it not true that some of these dairy farmers are passing through a very difficult time because they are having to pay too much rent?

Mr. Hughes: If my hon. Friend will put down a Question to me on that aspect, I shall be glad to answer.

Dairy Produce (Imports)

Mr. Monro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in reducing the import of dairy produce.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Imports of butter, near-butters and butter mixtures are subject to quota. Discussions are proceeding with overseas suppliers with a view to a measure of voluntary limitation on the export of cheddar-type cheese to our market.

Mr. Monro: Will not the Minister agree that these voluntary agreements do not seem to be working? Can he not take more definite action to prevent an increase in the import of dairy products?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will know that discussions are still in progress, and therefore it would not be possible for me to comment on that point. But I should add that the news that discussions are taking place has had a good effect on market sentiment, which still persists.

Mr. Godber: But will not the Minister admit that his proposals for the control of imports in this way have failed? Will he not address himself to some real way of effectively reducing cheese imports, which are having an intolerable effect? Will he not impose quotas, such as has been done with butter?

Mr. Hughes: I came to the conclusion that the steps I am now taking are the best and most rapid method of controlling the imports of cheese to this country. It is quite wrong to say that they have failed: the negotiations are still proceeding.

Eggs (Marketing)

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what consultations he has had with the Scottish National Farmers Union and other interested bodies following the report of the Reorganisation Commission for Eggs;

(2) if he will make a statement as a result of his consultations with interested


bodies following the publication of the report by the Reorganisation Commission for Eggs.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a statement on future arrangements for distribution of shell eggs; and on the reconstruction or abandonment of the Egg Marketing Board.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be able to announce Her Majesty's Government's decision about the recommendations in the report of the Rowland Wright Commission with regard to the marketing of eggs.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am not yet in a position to make a statement. My colleagues and I have received comments on the report from the three farmers' unions and other interested bodies in the United Kingdom and there have been meetings at their request with some of these bodies. We are giving urgent consideration to the recommendations of the Reorganisation Commission in the light of the views expressed.

Mr. Baker: Can the Minister give the House an assurance that when it comes to finalising any arrangements that may be come to the interests of the small producers in the outlying areas will be safeguarded, because such producers are very far from markets of great density?

Mr. Hughes: The interests of these producers are very much in my mind, and their position will be borne in mind.

Sir Clive Bossom: When will the Board cease to stamp eggs with the lion, because, as the Minister will agree, the lion is no longer helpful either to the producer or to the packing stations?

Mr. Hughes: This is only one of the recommendations in what is a very complex issue I gave it very careful consideration shortly after the Report came to my hands. It should not be considered in isolation from the many other complex features of the Report.

Bacon Curing Industry (Report)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take

regarding the Worth Report on the Bacon Curing Industry.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): The stabilisation arrangements for the bacon curing industry and the Bacon Market Sharing Understanding—which is shortly to be reviewed with participating countries - are both at present under consideration in the light of all the relevant factors, including in particular the recommendations in the Report of the Worth Committee.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that this Report drew attention to the need to improve efficiency in certain sections of the bacon curing industry? When will positive steps be taken to ensure that the processing side of the industry as well as the producing side does its best to increase the industry's competitive position?

Mr. Hoy: I agree that this Report made recommendations, not only to the Government, but to the industry. It is obvious that we would want some little time with the industry to discover the most satisfactory solution.

Balance of Payments

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to the effects of present policy in relation to imports of food on home agriculture: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the contribution agriculture is making to the United Kingdom's balance of payments problems; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement about import savings by the agricultural industry.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he now has for implementing the report of the National Economic Development Council on Agriculture; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The vital contribution that British agriculture is making to our balance of payments and the


extent of that contribution are matters which any Minister of Agriculture must constantly consider.
The Report of the Economic Development Committee for Agriculture has provided an invaluable basis for assessing the technical possibilities of expansion in relation to agriculture's contribution to the economy through import saving in the coming years. But other complex and far reaching issues are involved. When the Government have completed their examination of them, I will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Minister aware that reports of a statement he made recently in Denmark caused widespread alarm amongst home producers? Can he give the House a categoric assurance that home agriculture will be given a positive opportunity to replace imports and in that way help the balance of payments?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman should very carefully read what I said in Denmark and not draw the same inference as one newspaper drew. We are on an expansionist course. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the selective expansion programme. We are considering the Report of the Economic Development Committee very carefully and I hope to make a statement fairly shortly.

Mr. Mills: Is it not a national scandal that agriculture is not allowed to play a much greater part in solving our balance of payments problem? Will the Minister bear in mind that it is not in the best interests of agriculture to allow our best calves to be exported just for the sake of what we get from their export? What is needed is control of imports and a green light for agriculture to go ahead.

Mr. Hughes: The point the hon. Gentleman raises about calves does not arise on these Questions. He must table a Question about that. We are embarked on an expansionist programme such as was not devised or thought of by the Conservatives when they were in power. This is having its effect. It is making a contribution to import saving. Now we are considering what further measures are necessary. I will make a statement on this as soon as possible.

Mr. Marten: I understand the Government's desire to save imports, but can the Minister give an assurance that this policy of saving imports will not apply to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement?

Mr. Hughes: This is another question. Discussions on this issue are to start shortly and I cannot anticipate what they will be. I am very appreciative of the value of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.

Mr. Manuel: When dealing with the question of imports, is it not important to strike a proper balance so that there will not be rising prices in the shops because of a wrong balance between imports and home production?

Mr. Hughes: This is a balance of which I am constantly aware: I live with it every day. Not only am I Minister of Agriculture; I am also Minister of Food. This is a balance I must maintain. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing it to the attention of the House.

Mr. Godber: The Minister has spoken of an expansion programme and in replying to Question No. 16 he has spoken about the E.D.C. Report. Does he still adhere to the projects in the National Plan until such time as he has given us his view on the E.D.C. Report? If so, does he not recall that the plan says clearly that we are to expand capital production to the maximum possible for beef? How does that square with his facilitating the export of calves, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) referred and which is very relevant to this question?

Mr. Hughes: The question of beef will be considered with other commodities in our general consideration of the E.D.C. Report and in our general study of the problem. When I make a statement I shall be referring to beef, which I regard as very important. The right hon. Gentleman must table a Question to deal with his point on calves.

Mr. W. Baxter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the question of the export of calves is of paramount importance to the future wellbeing of the industry? Is he further aware that buyers come from Belgium and other continental countries to buy our best stock


calves for veal purposes? The price these calves fetch in this country of §7 per cwt. rises to about §60 to §100 per cwt. in Belgium when the calves are resold. Will my right hon. Friend take action to preserve our stock calves in Britain?

Mr. Hughes: The question of calves has aroused a great deal of public interest, as has been expressed in supplementary questions this afternoon. However, this should be the subject of another Question. It may assist the House if I say that it is a matter to which I am giving very urgent attention.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the large volume of imports of primary products, what new steps he has taken through international agreement to help strengthen the balance of payments.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: International agreements make a contribution to market stability. The Government have consistently sought to strengthen this country's balance of payments by encouraging the selective expansion of United Kingdom agricultural production.

Mr. Mills: This is not good enough. The Minister must realise that these voluntary arrangements will never work. He is dealing with ruthless countries which are prepared to subsidise to the extent of £300 to £400 a ton. New arrangements are needed to stop the flow of these products into Britain.

Mr. Hughes: We already have arrangements designed to promote greater market stability which regulate the imports of various important commodities—for example, cereals, bacon, butter and other commodities. Since this Government took office the United Kingdom has participated in the negotiation of new international agreements—for example, the new international coffee agreement—and we are active in negotiations concerning an agreement on sugar and cocoa. There is a wide range of negotiations going on now. I am conscious of the importance of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but he must not exaggerate.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is not the Minister aware that it is not the home-

produced coffee market which is threatened with collapse but the home-produced milk market which is threatened with collapse? When will he stop these informal discussions and start taking effective action in time before this market collapses?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is not doing agriculture a service by this exaggeration. He should realise that the market is not near collapse. Butter is sustained by the quota system. We are asking for voluntary restraint and negotiating on cheese. The hon. Gentleman must not say these things.

Harvest

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he intends to take to relieve farmers from the results of the excessively wet harvest.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): Our sympathy and admiration is due to everyone concerned for the tremendous efforts that have been made to get in the bad harvest. Weather is, however, one of the risks which the farming industry normally has to carry.

Mr. Jopling: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that some farmers are facing ruin after this harvest? Will he ensure that all problems which arise from it over subsidy payments receive prompt and sympathetic attention? Will he in particular consider paying an advance acreage payment on barley at once?

Mr. Mackie: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. I will look into the point he has made.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the fishing industry about the limitation of foreign imports.

Mr. Hoy: The matter has been referred to on several occasions in talks between the industry and my Department. We are fully aware of the industry's views, and it is, I think, equally


aware that any limitation has to be considered in the light of our international obligations.

Mr. Wall: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that what is wanted is not a redefinition of the Stockholm Agreement but an end to the dumping of fish on the British market at a price below the cost of production?

Mr. Hoy: Yes, we have that in mind. I shall deal with it further when I answer a later Question regarding the position within E.F.T.A.

Mr. Prior: Is not the Minister aware that the situation is going from bad to worse and that it is no longer good enough to say that talks are proceeding? What is now required is action.

Mr. Hoy: Yes, but any action will be limited by the 1959 Agreement entered into by right hon. and hon. Members opposite. We cannot break the international agreement. However, when I reply to the later Question, I shall deal with what we propose to do.

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on Government support for the fishing industry.

Mr. Hoy: As my right hon. Friend informed the House on 8th July last, legislation to implement the extended subsidy proposals which he then announced is to be introduced next Session.

Mr. Wall: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this may be money wasted unless he does something about foreign imports? Second, has the system of efficiency payments now been agreed with the industry?

Mr. Hoy: The negotiations are going on. It is really a matter for the industry. I remind the House that the substantial increase in support has had a warm welcome from the industry itself.

Mr. Lawson: Can my hon. Friend explain why there is such an outcry for Government intervention in this type of protection, when we understood that the party opposite was all against Government intervention?

Mr. Hoy: I think that there are a lot of people who do not want intervention but who want Government money.

Mr. Godber: In relation to the legislation to which the hon. Gentleman referred, will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there is need to bring in the legislation to which he referred as early as possible in the new Session? We shall look forward to participating in bringing it to the Statute Book very soon because of the need to clarify the industry's position as a whole.

Mr. Hoy: I hope that it will be early in the new Session, so that we may begin to make payments early in the new year.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that fishermen and merchants also, to my knowledge, think that Her Majesty's Government have given the industry a very good deal here, and they feel that it is now up to owners to put their own house in order with the State money which they are being given?

Mr. Hoy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I am grateful also to the industry for the response which it has made. I hope that, as a result of the reorganisation which is proposed, we shall have a better industry not only for those who are catching but for those also who have to buy and, of course, for the men engaged in the industry.

Fish (E.F.T.A. Imports)

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the talks with the European Free Trade Association on the landing of foreign-caught fish.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further progress he has made in his discussions with fellow members of the European Free Trade Association regarding their heavy landings of fish in the Humber ports during the past months; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hoy: Following discussions with Denmark, Norway and Sweden which brought an unsatisfactory response, we are now considering urgently in the E.F.T.A. Council the question of the high level of their exports to us of frozen fillets.
I should make clear that, except for frozen fillets, United Kingdom imports


from E.F.T.A. members of fresh, frozen and semi-preserved fish receive no special treatment.

Mr. McNamara: The Government's inability to reach some sort of agreement with the other countries will give great disappointment to people concerned in the industry here. Will my hon. Friend note our hope that, when he goes to the E.F.T.A. Council, he will be able to get something more positive, and, further, if he fails there, that he will consider taking some sort of unilateral action? Otherwise, all the Government money and Government intervention which is now being taken together will be lost.

Mr. Hoy: I am sorry that we did not reach agreement. I hope that we shall be able to do so in the E.F.T.A. Council. It would be premature for me to anticipate non-agreement, but I am bound to tell the House that, while hoping for an agreement, we recognise that there is a clear limit to how far we are prepared to go to achieve it.

Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that this contentious matter was discussed in the meeting of E.F.T.A. Parliamentarians at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, and we were informed there by Sir John Coulson, the Secretary-General of E.F.T.A., that the Working Party on Fishing within E.F.T.A. had come down solidly against any further liberalisation of imports? Is that not so?

Mr. Hoy: I am not aware of what was reported to hon. Members at that meeting. All I can report is what we have done. We have taken the matter to the E.F.T.A. When I say that we do not want to anticipate non-agreement, I have in mind also that residual action is open to us. We shall certainly consider it if we cannot reach agreement.

Mr. Clegg: In the discussions with the other E.F.T.A. countries, was the level of support given particularly to Norway discussed?

Mr. Hoy: That did not arise. What did arise was the permitted amount which the Norwegians could export to this country as laid down under the 1959 Agreement. Our complaint is that they have exceeded it. We want them to conform to the agreement.

Cyclamates

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now review the practice of using cyclamates in all foods and drinks except ice-cream in the light of the first half-year's experience of the working of the Regulations and of the representations he has received from experts thereon.

Mr. Hoy: My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health are keeping this practice under continuous review, with particular regard to any evidence of possible health hazards and to the extent and levels of use of cyclamates. In the light of experience so far, we are satisfied that there is no justification for amending the Regulations.

Mrs. Butler: Would it not be in the consumer's interest to benefit also from the three years' experience of cyclamates in the United States, where, as a result of that experience, the Food and Drugs Administration is considering introducing the labelling of products containing cyclamates in order to specify recommended use levels and to give cautionary information? Should that not be done while we are waiting for our experts to report further?

Mr. Hoy: Obviously, we take note of what happens in other countries. The use of cyclamates in America is much wider than it is here. The alleged hazard to consumers has been considered twice, by the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee and the Pharmacological Sub-Committee, in both 1965 and 1967. They found no risk to health at the likely levels of consumption. I remind the House that the joint F.A.O.-W.H.O. Expert Committee came to a similar conclusion.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a substantial body of medical and scientific opinion believes that sugar is far more injurious to health than are cyclamates?

Mr. Hoy: I have heard that said, but I do not want to start off another argument.

Price Reviews (Increased Efficiency)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether


he will review the estimate of §30 million for increased efficiency normally taken into account in Annual Price Reviews.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The £30 million was agreed with the Farmers' Unions in 1966. Such an assessment can be made only over a period of years. I would expect such a reassessment to be made in 1969.

Mr. Brewis: Would it be possible to take into account that certain sectors of the industry have better possibilities for increasing efficiency than others? For example, hill sheep farming cannot very easily improve efficiency. Could that be taken into account when this sum is allocated between the various interests?

Mr. Hughes: These matters are taken into account. I shall pay special attention to that problem, which is one which I know personally very well. However, we should not overlook the assistance which is already given to hill farmers, which has been very substantial over the past few years.

Sir D. Renton: Will the Minister bear in mind that in the East, the South-East and the Midlands, the increased efficiency undoubtedly achieved in crop production was completely nullified by excessive rainfall? Will he bear that in mind at the next Price Review?

Mr. Hughes: Clearly, I shall not have to draw that to the attention of those concerned

Capital Investment

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the present rate of capital investment in agriculture; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The growth of both output and productivity implies a satisfactory rate of investment.

Mr. Hill: Is not much of this investment being forced upon farmers not so much in order to expand but to stay where they are because of the speed of technical change, and may it not follow, therefore, that the actual rate of obsolescence exceeds the permitted rate of depreciation, so that capital troubles are building up for the future? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that?

Mr. Hughes: I have no evidence of that. The evidence which I have is that good progress is being made. For example, the House may be interested in the figures of gross fixed capital formation in agriculture: taking buildings and works, vehicles, plant and machinery together, in 1962 it was £152 million, and in 1967 it was £183 million. The facts seem to indicate that investment is progressing at a reasonably satisfactory rate.

Day-Old Chickens

Mr. Roebuck: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the increasing practice among poultry breeders of cutting off the wings of day-old chickens before despatch for further rearing; and whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to ban such operations.

Mr. John Mackie: Such a practice would not be in accordance with the draft Code of Welfare Recommendations for Domestic Fowls, which we have recently circulated for comment. I can, however, find no evidence that this practice exists in this country.

Mr. Roebuck: Has not my hon. Friend seen the recent report of the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, which gave details of this practice? Is he aware that the Federation, like the vast majority of people in this country, who oppose these practices, are not cranks, vegetarians or sentimentalists, but people who want to eat well and live decently? Will he look closely at this matter again and bring forward legislation to deal with it?

Mr. Mackie: The Ministry of Agriculture is not an asylum for the blind. We have asked Major Scott of the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare to produce specific evidence, and he cannot do it. We have also gone to considerable lengths to find out from our own poultry experts and vets if there is any evidence, and we cannot find it. The Press took up the story, as did my hon. Friend without doing his homework.

Wood Pigeons (Control)

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what conclusions he has reached following his study of the results of the trials of stupefying baits for the control of wood pigeons.

Mr. John Mackie: The trials conducted by Ministry scientists and, more recently, by farmers operating under Ministry supervision indicate that stupefying baits may have some value in the local control of wood pigeons. There are, however, technical and administrative problems to be solved before the wider use of this method could be contemplated. These are now being studied.

Mr. Irvine: Is the Minister aware that for many years pigeons have been a major menace to arable crops, and therefore this is a matter of urgency? Will he press on with it as much as he can? Is there any hope that this may also be used for sparrows in farms and finches in orchards?

Mr. Mackie: As regards the last part of the question, the hon. Gentleman must know the feeling there is on anything of that nature of poisons or narcotics for dealing with pests. That is why we must be so careful. But we are pressing on with this. This consideration also applies to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Deep Sea Fishing Fleet

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation following his announcement about the future organisation of the deep sea fishing fleet: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hoy: The Industrial Reorganisation Corporation is keeping us closely in touch with the discussions to which my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs referred in his reply of 14th October to my hon. Friend.—[Vol. 770, c. 45.]

Mr. Johnson: Bearing in mind the successful mergers in computers, cars and other industries, will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government mean business with this more individualistic industry, particularly since larger financing means more modern vessels, with consequent better safety conditions for the fishermen on them?

Mr. Hoy: My hon. Friend and the House would not expect me to comment on the matter until we have had a report of what has taken place.

Mr. McNamara: Will my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the I.R.C., despite looking at the organisation of the deep sea fleet, is carefully examining the whole question of the marketing of the commodity once it has been caught?

Mr. Hoy: I do not know all the details of what is taking place. These aspects are bound to be considered. The I.R.C. is discussing the fishing industry. I would not care to go on specifying every section of it, because as soon as one does that someone suggests something that has been left out. The I.R.C. and the industry are considering the fishing industry.

Mr. Wall: When does the Minister expect to be able to make a statement on this important matter?

Mr. Hoy: As soon as conclusions are reached. It would be for the industry, with the I.R.C, to reach conclusions and then report them to us.

Floods

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the damage to agriculture caused by the recent floods and the steps his Depart-men are taking to alleviate it.

Mr. John Mackie: The recent floods covered many thousands of acres of agricultural land in the East and South-East of England. Fortunately most of the cereal crop had already been harvested so that damage was much less than it would have been had the floods come earlier. The most severe damage was to horticultural crops in the Thames Valley and to potatoes, sugar beat and beans in certain limited areas, particularly in East Anglia. There was more widespread damage to farm drainage systems, farm roads, gates and fences. We do know and are sorry that individual fanners have suffered severely.
My Department can give no direct help to alleviate losses from damage to crops and stock, but we are giving farmers all the help we can under existing grant schemes for restoration of ditches and for improvement to land and buildings necessitated by the floods. In addition, the Government will be contributing to flood relief funds. While these are likely to give priority to relief


of domestic losses, farming losses may also be eligible.

Mr. Hill: Will the Minister carry his survey a little further, so that he can identify in detail those farms which have suffered a real disaster? That will show him that certain growers have had all their income for the next six months washed away with the crops. Many such growers will be liable to pay heavy drainage charges for which they have clearly received no benefit. Could the hon. Gentleman consider helping in that respect?

Mr. Mackie: We are looking into the individual cases, and we shall be obliged if hon. Members will bring to our attention any that we may miss. I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's point about drainage charges.

Mr. Gardner: Could my hon. Friend estimate what effect this awful summer is likely to have on food prices to the consumer this winter? If they are likely to rise considerably as a result, will he take measures to protect the lower-paid workers from the effects of the increases?

Mr. Mackie: It is very difficult to appreciate yet what effect the weather might have on the market prices of farm produce. The farmers have their guarantee from the Price Review. I will keep in mind the point my hon. Friend raised.

Mr. Godber: To some of us at least, the Minister's interpretation of the total extent of the damage is probably not as great, particularly in regard to cereals, as was actually the case. In any case, for many farmers, dealing with cereal and arable crops generally, a continuing problem will arise because no winter cultivations will be able to take place. Will the Minister bear in mind the need for farmers to have the greatest possible credit facilities to enable them to overcome the difficulties that will continue over at least the next 12 months?

Mr. Mackie: The right hon. Gentleman does not need to tell me about the situation. I have seen it, and I have experienced it myself. As regards credit, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Answer yesterday of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to a Question on this subject, which I think was very satisfactory.

Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that in areas where flooding is repeated a great deal of discontent is caused by the fact that grants allowed to river boards do not enable them to carry out in the near future renovations and alterations to river courses which would remove the problem completely? I refer particularly to the Conway Valley.

Mr. Mackie: This is a slightly different question. It would cost thousands of millions of pounds to give adequate protection to every area that was subject to flooding in the past month or two, particularly since in some areas there were over six inches of rainfall in 24 hours. My hon. Friend would not contemplate any Government carrying out something to protect every area.

Sir J. Rodgers: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the result of his inquiry into the cause of the recent flooding, particularly in the Kent and Sussex areas; and what proposals he is making to try to avoid similar occurrences in the future.

Mr. John Mackie: The recent flooding was due to exceptionally heavy rainfall which, as I said earlier, in places exceeded six inches in one day. River authorities are examining their flood defences in the light of this experience, but in many places it would not be economically feasible to prevent flooding in the face of rainfall of such intensity.

Sir J. Rodgers: Would not the Minister agree that, while everyone is full of admiration of the part played by the police, the local authorities, and the voluntary organisations, nevertheless these recent floodings do reveal the need for a clearly defined high command? Furthermore, would he say whether householders, who suffered grievously in my own constituency from these floods, will receive compensation from the Government where they are not insured?

Mr. Mackie: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are flood relief funds to which the Government have been subscribing, and these will be used chiefly for householders and people who have been hard hit by the floods. I do know that there has been a little criticism of the warning system and we are looking


into the whole question again, but we have kept it continuously under review.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, when he is considering flood protection, the urgent needs of Londoners? Is he aware that 60 square miles of London along the banks of the Thames are daily at risk from flooding? Is he also aware that flooding from the Thames could flood London's Underground, causing terrible disaster? Will he bear in mind that the people of London expect some positive action from this Government?

Mr. Mackie: This has been a problem for a long time, as my hon. Friend well knows, but we have this very closely under review, and at the present time discussions are going on as to the best course of action, but I am afraid that the experts themselves are not just too sure. We have asked for a further report on what is the best plan, a barrage or a barrier, and in due course a decision will be taken.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what improvements he proposes, arising out of the recent experience in Hertfordshire and elsewhere, to ensure the prompt notification of flood danger so as to facilitate quick and effective preventive and remedial action by local authorities and householders in areas affected.

Mr. John Mackie: It is not always possible to provide warning of flood danger. But in the light of the recent floods we propose to examine with the other interests concerned—river authorities, the police and the Meteorological Office—how the existing flood warning arrangements could be further improved. A conference of experts is being convened for this purpose.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the light of recent experience, there is a great deal of room for improvement in this context, and does he appreciate that, with the organisation of some central force to take the place of the contribution formerly made by Civil Defence, an efficient system of early notification is perhaps the greatest immediate contribution which the central Government can make in this respect?

Mr. Mackie: Yes, as I said earlier, there has been criticism of the warning system, but it is not all that easy. I would just refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman back, if he is interested, as I am, in the weather every day, to last Tuesday morning when my hon. Friend at the Ministry of Defence phoned me and told me that the forecast was nearly 24 hours of continuous rain and I immediately discussed with officials whether we should put out a flood warning on the B.B.C. at one o'clock. We decided against it. The Press reported the next day that my hon. Friend at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government sent out preliminary telegrams and considerably criticised him for this, for by three o'clock the sun was shining. That is just the problem we all have to face.

Mr. Ellis: Will my hon. Friend say whether it is the river authorities as such who are responsible for issuing warnings to the general public, and, if they are not, whose responsibility it is? If it is, will he arrange with the river authorities to liaise with the Meteorological Office so that when it gives flash warnings over the broadcast the river authorities can attach to that message warning that a flood is imminent in a particular area?

Mr. Mackie: This takes place. The river authority decides on warnings. At the Ministry of Agriculture we get notification. It is the duty of the police to give warnings locally, but, as I illustrated to the right hon. and learned Gentleman who raised this earlier, the difficulty is about how widespread these warnings should be. For one thing, we might nullify the effect of the warning system if our warnings were too widespread. If after warnings nothing happened, people might start to take no notice of them.

Early Potatoes

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will make a statement regarding the Government's future policy on the importation of early potatoes.

Mr. Hoy: Our policy continues to be that new potatoes may be imported at any time of the year except in September and October, subject to compliance with


the plant health regulations and to payment of duty. The home grower is protected from imports from non-Commonwealth sources by the tariff which is at a level of £9 6s. 8d. a ton from 16th May to 30th June when our own first early crop is on the market.

Mr. Donnelly: Is my hon. Friend aware, nevertheless, that after last summer's fiasco the situation as regards early potato growers in Wales appears to be that people at home have been restricted by artificial restrictions on the acreage of crops while at the same time the gentlemen in, say, Cyprus will be free to expand yet further at our expense?

Mr. Hoy: On the contrary, according to the Potato Marketing Board, the acreage of early varieties was 15,000 acres greater than in 1967. Anyone who knows anything about the industry will remember that at that time there was an overlapping in crops from Pembrokeshire, Cornwall and Kent, which were late, with those of the Eastern Counties, and that had a great deal of effect on the market at that time.

Mr. Brewis: Is the Minister aware of the intense feeling on the subject in this country? What could be crasser than buying potatoes from Nasser? Will it be long before we are buying earlies from the Viet Cong?

Mr. Hoy: It is always difficult to draw the line because one has to think of the consumer in this respect, and one has also to remember, and the hon. Member ought to remember, the repercussions it might have on our exports of seed potatoes. One cannot very well claim a right to export seed and then tell people they cannot sell the crops when they have grown them.

Arable Rotations (Grass Break)

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he is giving to the possibility of introducing a special encouragement to farmers to increase the use of the grass break in arable rotations.

Mr. John Mackie: The desirability of encouraging a grass break in arable rotations depends largely on the circumstances of the individual farm and the use to which the grass can be put, but the substantial increases made at the last

Annual Review to the returns of cattle and sheep producers should have made the introduction of a grass break more attractive to arable farmers. Therefore my right hon. Friend has at present no plans for grant aiding the laying down of arable land to grass.

Mr. Irvine: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is still a great deal of room for improvement in the amount of production of beef and sheep? Therefore, if he did give special encouragement to those enterprises, not only would he stand a better chance of reducing imports, but he would also stand a better chance of reducing cereal disease.

Mr. Mackie: I appreciate this. As I said, we give this encouragement, but there is no good in growing grass if we do not use it. Therefore, we give encouragement to stock to eat the grass. It is for the arable farmers to decide whether to lay down grass to feed the stock.

Potato Crop (Lifting)

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to respond to the call from the Potato Marketing Board and the National Farmers' Union to assist in providing additional labour to help growers in lifting the potato crop; and whether he will hire temporary accommodation at the agricultural holiday camp at Fridaybridge, near Wis-bech, for such additional labour forces as may be available from the Armed Forces or volunteers.

Mr. Hoy: Through local officials and by liaison with the Potato Marketing Board and the National Farmers' Union we are keeping in closest touch with the potato harvesting situation as it develops. Officials are also in touch with the Department of Employment and Productivity and the Ministry of Defence. The latter's help will be sought if necessary. Standing arrangements provide for military assistance to be called in only if there is a national or regional emergency and when all available sources of civilian labour have been exhausted. That situation has certainly not yet been reached.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that something in the


nature of an emergency has arisen, particularly in the Fenland areas, not least because, owing to recent weather conditions, it is virtually now impossible in many cases to get mechanical potato lifting machinery on to the land at all, and therefore a great deal of the crop will have to be lifted by hand? In the light of this, will he reconsider the urgency of calling in the Armed Forces to help?

Mr. Hoy: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are in consultation with the parties I have mentioned and he will be delighted to know that the weather has improved considerably this week so that a good deal more machinery is on the land. I give him the assurance that we will keep very close watch on this, and, if necessary, we shall take the action which is required.

Mr. Hazell: If my hon. Friend does consider it necessary in due course to introduce additional labour such as members of the Armed Forces, and so on, to help with the potato harvest, will he make quite sure he consults the workers' unions before such additional labour is taken on?

Mr. Hoy: My hon. Friend does have the assurance that we consult everyone concerned. We must not reach conclusions now, and I did not say we have got to use the Armed Forces. What I did say was that if there is an emergency then we would obviously want to consult everybody concerned about it.

Morpeth (Flood Protection)

Mr. Will Owen: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being taken to assist the Borough of Morpeth in dealing with its need for flood protection; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. John Mackie: The Northumbrian River Authority and the Morpeth Borough Council each propose to carry out further flood protection works to augment those completed in 1965. The Council's proposals are technically sound and we shall be prepared to pay grant on the eligible works. Details of the River Authority's proposals were submitted on 25th September and are being examined urgently.

Mr. Owen: While welcoming the statement, and I am sure this will be welcomed by the Borough of Morpeth, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that some of these citizens have suffered flood damage four times in the last 11 months, and would he be good enough to give consideration to the possibility of giving some special assistance in this respect?

Mr. Mackie: We have every sympathy. I know only too well the tragedy of flooded houses, especially at the beginning of winter when the difficulties of drying out are very extreme indeed. We will look sympathetically at my hon. Friend's second point.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Police (Recruitment)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many police officers have been recruited by Scottish forces since he imposed restricions on recruitment in July; and how many have been lost to the force in the same period.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to him yesterday.

Mr. Taylor: As the experience of the last three months, when net recruitment in the whole of Scotland was only 22, has shown that the selective restrictions have not helped the difficult areas at all, and as Scotland is short of about 1,000 men will the Secretary of State not abandon these absurd restrictions forthwith?

Mr. Ross: I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. If one compares Glasgow over the past three months with a similar period last year, one finds that Glasgow has recruited more than last year, and I am glad to say that they lost less; in fact a net increase of 27.

Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend say how the figures for crime in this period in Scotland have progressed or regressed, and could he give the figures for Glasgow?

Mr. Ross: That is an entirely different question.

Fuel Prices

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will direct the Scottish Economic Planning Council to initiate a study of the effect of fuel prices on the Scottish economy.

Mr. Ross: No, Sir.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that Scottish housewives are paying more than 25 per cent, above the average price of gas south of the Border, and that the Scottish Gas Board today anticipated further increases up to the 1970s? In view of this, is he seriously saying that, as our sole voice in the Cabinet, he is not even prepared to look into this problem?

Mr. Ross: I do not think that the question relates in any way to the Cabinet. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether or not in the interests of the Scottish economy we should ask the Scottish Economic Planning Council to look into this matter. If the Scottish Economic Planning Council felt that this was of such singular importance and that there was something they did not know about, they would initiate a study. This is only one factor in relation to prices in the Scottish economy, and there is no indication that this specifically is retarding growth in any way.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, while we appreciate his natural suspicion about the motivation of the Question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), it is said in the recent statement by the Scottish Gas Board that it will be three to four years before the benefits of North Sea gas are available in Scotland. The disparity, therefore, will be increased and the examination might be worth while.

Mr. Ross: It may well be, in relation to the future.

Mr. G. Campbell: As the Secretary of State has made a curious arrangement under which he is also the Chairman of the Scottish Economic Planning Council, why does he not arrange for a study to be carried out from his other resources in the Scottish Office?

Mr. Ross: Because it is quite unnecessary.

School and House Building (Midlothian)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the value of school building completed in the years 1960 to 1968, respectively, in the county of Midlothian.

Mr. Ross: As the reply contains a number of figures, I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Eadie: I thank my right hon. Friend for his Answer, but would he also circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the comparison of the figures which were achieved during the term of office of the party opposite?

Mr. Ross: For the five years from 1960 to 1964, inclusive, the value of school building completed in Midlothian was £2·167 million, and in the three years from 1965 to 1967, inclusive, the value was £2·517 million.

The figures are as follows:



£


1960
538,000


1961
245,000


1962
403,000


1963
580,000


1964
401,000


1965
656,000


1966
1,145,000


1967
716,000

The value for 1968 will not be known until after the end of the year.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of houses completed in the years 1960 to 1968, respectively, in the county of Midlothian; and what was the annual capital sum involved.

Mr. Ross: With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the number of houses completed in each calendar year. The information available about capital expenditure does not enable me to answer the second part of the question.

Mr. Eadie: Would my right hon. Friend agree, since there is at the present time so much discussion about housing, that the provision of houses is a social investment towards the well-being of people? Will he also, since he is talking


about figures, circulate the comparative figures during the term of office of the party opposite?

Mr. Ross: It is because of the importance we place upon the provision of new housing in Scotland that we welcome the improvement that there has been, and I think the whole House will welcome it. From 1960 to 1964, inclusive, the number of houses completed in the five years in the county of Midlothian was 3,998. In the last three and a half years, from 1965 to 30th June this year, the number is 5,106.

Following is the Table:



Number of Houses Completed


Year
Public Sector
Private Sector
Total


1960
399
330
729


1961
537
461
998


1962
358
481
839


1963
638
128
766


1964
511
155
666


1965
600
476
1,076


1966
853
532
1,385


1967
1,295
313
1,608


1968 (to 30th June)
767
270
1,037

E.E.C. and E.F.T.A.

Mrs. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what occasions he attended negotiations outside the United Kingdom involving the entry of the United Kingdom into the Common Market, giving the date and place of each occasion.

Mr. Ross: There have been no forma! negotiations so the question does not arise.

Mrs. Ewing: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Scottish problems involved in entering into the Common Market are entirely different from the English problems and that the two must not be lumped together? As his office is the nearest in function that we have at present to a Prime Minister in Scotland., will he not undertake to the House that he will join in such negotiations as take place?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Lady should appreciate that some of our problems are exactly the same, but I would be the first to admit that we have special problems. She will remember that the Prime Minister himself stated that, when formal

negotiations take place, the Foreign Secretary will be accompanied by whichever Ministers, including Scottish Ministers, are necessary for the particular subject under discussion.

Mrs. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will undertake in all future negotiations involving the Common Market or the European Free Trade Association to ensure the protection of the distinct economic problems of Scotland.

Mr. Ross: I am at all times concerned to protect the economic interests of Scotland.

Mrs. Ewing: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell me what persons will participate directly in any such negotiations, so that we can feel confident that our interests will be represented? Will he say which persons have, up to now, carried out the negotiations in E.F.T.A., which persons are carrying on such negotiations at E.E.C. at the moment, and which persons will do so in the future?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Lady asked a Question about the Common Market and future negotiations of the European Free Trade Association. I have given her the answer to that. It was implicit in the Answer that was given, and which I referred to in reply to the last Question, that relevant Ministers with direct concern for specific problems will, where necessary, participate in such negotiations.

Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some hon. Members regard the 71 Scots Members of Parliament in Westminster as an insurance policy for the Scottish people if and when we enter the Common Market? Would he agree that this will ensure, if and when we enter the Common Market, the prevention of the concentration of industry in the Midlands and the South-East?

Mr. Ross: I consider that the presence of the 71 Scottish M.P.s in the House, whether or not it is related to the Common Market, is the best insurance we can have that the interests of Scotland, within the United Kingdom, are protected.

Mr. G. Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very successful E.F.T.A. conference that was held


in Edinburgh over four years ago, and will he remind his colleagues of this?

Mr. Ross: Yes.

Judges (Political Activities)

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek powers to ensure that the tradition that Her Majesty's judges should not take an active part in party political activities is maintained.

Mr. Ross: No, Sir. It is a well established convention of the constitution that judges should not be involved in the formulation of policy for political parties and should avoid all participation in the political activities of such parties. I can find no reason for seeking to have this enshrined in a statute.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's reply, but would he say to the Scottish Bench that, in their own interests, they might observe this tradition, and that they ought to maintain the habit of other senior servants of the Crown and take no part in party political activities, since this does not seem to be clear to a number of them?

Mr. Ross: I do not think this requires to be made clear to the Scottish Bench; I am perfectly sure that they understand it fully.

Scottish Labour History

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of Slate for Scotland when he expects the work on Scottish Labour history, undertaken under the auspices and finance of his Department by Mr. McDougall of Strathclyde University in January, 1967, will be available to Members of Parliament.

Mr. Ross: This work is not financed by any of my Departments and I have no information about publication.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State realise that the history is anxiously awaited by a large number of people in Scotland as a guide and an inspiration to what they may do in the event of the likely constitutional alterations in Scotland at the time of the next General Election?

Mr. Ross: I would be inclined to agree with my hon. and learned Friend, but I must assure him that it has no connection with the Scottish Office.

Scottish Economy

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the findings of his detailed study of the adverse factors confronting the Scottish economy, including the high rate of unemployment and the loss of skilled labour because of emigration; and what further proposals Her Majesty's Government have for the improvement of economic conditions in Scotland as foreshadowed in the White Paper on the Scottish Economy 1965 to 1970.

Mr. Ross: Scotland's main economic problems were correctly identified in the White Paper and the policies we have initiated to overcome them are now taking effect.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State realise that there are large areas in Scotland, and a large number of people, who are awaiting the development which this technological age can give? Will he give a fillip to their desires for the purpose of developing trade, industry, commerce and employment in Scotland?

Mr. Ross: We have already done so.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Can we have some figures on emigration, and can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it went to an all-time high after he became Secretary of State?

Mr. Ross: Because, unfortunately, of the Tory Secretary of State before me.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Hearing Aids

Mr. Pavitt: asked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements have been made to offset the Government's import of 11,250 hearing aids from Denmark by an export order of a comparable cost.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dun-woody): None are needed. British firms are as free to compete for business in Denmark as Danish firms are here.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my hon. Friend aware that this has occasioned profound disappointment to British manufacturers who would like to have secured this order, which would have given a solid basis for our overseas exports? Will she give a lead to other Departments to buy British goods?

Mrs. Dunwoody: We always encourage British suppliers to tender when they can provide the right sort of goods. They will get preference if they can compete on equal terms.

Advance Factory, Sunderland

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on the advance factory in Sunderland which is at present unoccupied.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The application referred to in my reply of 10th July has unfortunately been withdrawn. Every effort is being made to find a suitable occupant.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Nigeria (Supply of Arms)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence why quantities of arms have been sent to Federal Nigeria from the British armed forces in Germany during the last three months.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statements made by the Foreign Secretary and the Commonwealth Secretary in the debates on 12th June and 22nd July respectively.—[Vol. 766, c. 243; Vol. 769, c. 50.]

Mr. Allaun: But is it not a fact that British troop carriers and other weapons have been sent to Nigeria from Germany? If so, and I am sure that it is, why was there an attempt to conceal the fact?

Mr. Rees: As has been stated frequently, the Government are prepared to authorise the export of carefully controlled quantities of arms and ammunition of broadly the same types as we have supplied in the past. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explained the basic policy underlying that.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (ORGANISATION)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about three changes in the organisation of Government Departments. They cover, respectively, the organisation of government for overseas affairs, the social services and the management of the Civil Service.
I explained in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) on 28th March that I had asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to supervise the amalgamation of the Foreign Office and Commonwealth Office into a single office for which he would become responsible. Preparations are now complete and the merger of the two Departments into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will take effect tomorrow. My right hon. Friend hopes, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement about the merger this afternoon.
The Queen has graciously agreed that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary should take charge of the combined Office as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
The second change relates to the social services. I referred in an Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) on 11th April to my decision to amalgamate the Ministries of Health and Social Security. The Queen has graciously agreed to the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council as Secretary of State for Social Services.
An Order to transfer to the Secretary of State the functions of the Minister of Health and the Minister of Social Security, and to dissolve the two Ministries, is being laid before the House in draft today. I hope that it will be possible to arrange through the usual channels for the Motion for the necessary affirmative Resolution to be debated in this House next week. Subject to this, and to approval of a similar Motion in another place, the amalgamation of the two Ministries into the Department of Health and Social Security will take place on 1st November.
I am sure that the House generally will welcome this amalgamation. I am


confident that it will facilitate the working out of policies covering the whole field of the new Department which at present cut across departmental boundaries.
My right hon. Friend will continue after his appointment as the Secretary of State for Social Services to co-ordinate the whole range of social services, in addition to his responsibility for the new combined Department.
The third change relates to the management of the Civil Service. I told the House in my statement on the Report of the Fulton Committee on 26th June that the Government accepted their recommendation that responsibility for the Management of the Civil Service should be transferred from the Treasury to a new Civil Service Department under the direction of the Prime Minister as Minister for the Civil Service. The arrangements for setting up this Department are now complete. An Order has been made, and will also be laid before the House today, for the necessary transfer of functions from the Treasury to the Minister for the Civil Service to take effect on 1st November.
As I have already informed the House, my noble Friend the Paymaster-General, the Lord Shackleton, will be responsible for the day-to-day work of the new Department, under my direction.
The Civil Service Department will assume the Treasury's functions in respect of the pay and management of the Civil Service, and also for the co-ordination of Government policy in relation to pay and pensions throughout the public sector. The Civil Service Commission will form part of the new Department, but specific and formal arrangements are being made to ensure the continuing independence and political impartiality of the Commission in the selection of individuals for appointment to the Civil Service. I hope that the House will have an opportunity shortly to debate the setting up of the Civil Service Department on a Motion to take note of the Fulton Report.
These developments will necessitate changes in the arrangements for answering Questions in this House, and I suggest that discussions on this should be conducted through the usual channels.

Mr. Heath: We have already welcomed the proposed changes in the structure of Government. May I ask the Prime Minister four questions?
First, what will be the Ministerial structure for each of the new combined Departments, and what will be the reduction in the total number of Ministers involved as a result?
Second, what savings will there be in the total number in the Civil Service involved as a result of these changes, and what financial saving will there be?
Third, the Prime Minister says in his statement:
The Civil Service Department will assume the Treasury's functions in respect of the pay and management of the Civil Service, and also for the co-ordination of Government policy in relation to pay and pensions throughout the public sector.
Does that mean the nationalised industries, as well as the administrative side of Government?
Fourth, as the deputy Minister for the Civil Service is at present in the Lords, will the Prime Minister himself be answering Questions in this House on the Civil Service and, in view of the scope of the Department that he has described, will this be in addition to his normal Questions at 3.15 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays?

The Prime Minister: On Ministerial structure, my right hon. Friend may be able to go into this in more detail with regard to his own merger. The intention first in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be that the Ministers appointed there, who will be, in effect, the present Ministers without the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, will have a responsibility over the whole field rather than a separation between foreign and Commonwealth affairs.
With regard to the Ministerial structure for the other combined Department, the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt see what is proposed. After 1st November, there will no longer be separate Ministers of Health and Social Security. The Order provides for two Ministers of State to carry out their functions. With regard to the Civil Service Department, I think that I have already made the position clear. Savings in the Civil Service will be difficult to estimate at present.
On the overseas side, my right hon. Friend intends to give a lot more attention to commercial and export promotion. We believe that, within the existing numbers, at any rate, it will be possible to get a great deal more done in that and other directions. The struggle that successive Governments have had has been to hold down the rise in the Civil Service over a period of years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—which began in about 1959 or 1960. The House is aware of the decisions announced last January about this year, and I have given instructions to the Civil Service Department that its first task will be to make that effective.
With regard to the public sector, I would like to check in greater detail about the delimitation. I was referring to Civil Service, ex-Civil Service and Service pay and pensions rather than the nationalised industries, some of which follow an industrial pattern. As he said, the Minister in charge of the day-to-day work of the Civil Service Department will be in another place. It was precisely because of that that I felt that there should be discussions through the usual channels about Parliamentary Questions. It will be my suggestion—and we can discuss this—that while, obviously, I will be ready to answer the more important strategic Questions about the Civil Service, it would not be approved by the House if my normal Tuesday and Thursday Question times were to some extent diluted by Questions about the Civil Service. Other arrangements will have to be made.
Perhaps the answer would be to have a series of Civil Service Department Questions added to the list that we all carry round in our pockets. I would have to have discussions about how often that would be. Possibly I could share then in this House with another Minister.

Mr. Steele: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland is the Minister in charge of health in Scotland. Will the new arrangement of the combination of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Security cover the whole of the United Kingdom? What will be the situation concerning the Secretary of State for Scotland under the new arrangement?

The Prime Minister: There will be no change concerning my right hon. Friend's responsibilities for health in Scotland.

Mr. Thorpe: The Prime Minister is aware that there is much logic in the coordination of Commonwealth and foreign affairs and health and social security, which we welcome, but I would ask two questions.
First, can the Prime Minister give an undertaking that there will be no reduction in the total time available for Questions by right hon. and hon. Members of this House concerning any of those departmental responsibilities?
Secondly, as the Civil Service is particularly the responsibility of this House, which alone has the power to vote money, is the Prime Minister aware that the fact that he has delegated his responsibilities to a Member of another House, which has no responsibility for finance, is something which constitutionally we regard with some reservation?

The Prime Minister: The first question raises the sort of problem which ought to be dealt with by discussion through the usual channels.
On the second question, I am taking a very keen interest in the organisation of the new Civil Service Department and keeping a close eye on what is being done. But I do not think this derogates from the control of this House over the voting of expenditure.

Mr. Moonman: The Prime Minister has referred to the co-ordination of the social services. First, does this mean that the new Secretary of State will be responsible for implementing the findings of the Seebohm Committee's Report?
Secondly, whilst welcoming the reorganisation of the Civil Service, may I ask the Prime Minister whether there will be an urgent and speedy debate on the Fulton Report, which has not yet taken place in this House?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend will be responsible for coordinating discussions with local authorities and other interests on the Seebohm Report. But it is too early to say whether any changes in departmental organisation, other than that arising from the merger of the two Departments, will flow from this Report.
A debate on the Fulton Report has been promised and is being planned. I think that discussions are still going on about it through the usual channels.

Mr. Dean: Can the Prime Minister say whether the new Ministry of Social Security will take over some of the functions concerning children which at present are performed by the Home Office?

The Prime Minister: No, there is no plan to do that. My right hon. Friend, in addition to being in executive charge of the new Department, will have a wider responsibility for coordinating the social services and will have responsibility for seeing that everything is done in the matter of co-ordination of the Children's Department and other functions relating to children.

Mr. J. T. Price: Whilst I strongly support the proposals which the Prime Minister has submitted to the House, and also the main recommendations of the Fulton Report, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that on the reorganisation of the hospital services, which is implicit in the proposals now submitted, I am continuing to receive many anxious representations from my part of Lancashire about certain proposals submitted in the Green Paper in which a radical reconstruction of that service is ventilated for discussion? Has the Prime Minister any further comment to make on that aspect of the matter?

The Prime Minister: The reason it was a Green Paper was to get comments of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend. It would have been wrong to publish a White Paper with a cut and dried take-it-or-leave-it plan. It is valuable that we should all be getting representations about the proposals in the Green Paper. My hon. Friend will be aware that the report of the Royal Commission on Local Government is expected in the fairly near future. That will have a close bearing on other aspects of the organisation of health and social services.

Mr. David Howell: Will the Prime Minister say something about the Treasury's relations with these new Departments? Is he planning any review of the methods by which the Treasury intervenes in the detailed spending decisions of this or other Departments? Does the Prime Minister think that shuffling round

with Ministries will achieve anything very radical in modernising the structure of Whitehall, unless he looks at the problem of financial control which is central to it?

The Prime Minister: There is no proposal for any change in the relationship between the Treasury and the spending Departments.

Mr. Archer: Can the Prime Minister say whether the opportunity will be taken to look at the problems of co-ordination of issues of a social welfare nature in other directions, for example, co-ordination of projects for the elderly and for the handicapped?

The Prime Minister: Yes. That is one of the main purposes of this reorganisation. As my hon. Friend will be aware, among the problems which cut across the departmental boundaries of the two Departments at the present time, especially the boundaries between the Ministries of Health and Social Security, are problems affecting the elderly, the very young and the long-term sick and disabled.
I think that to combine these two Departments will help in the co-ordination of these matters. My right hon. Friend's responsibility for broader co-ordination of the social services will enable him to help bring together the handling of these problems, even though other Ministries are affected.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Can the Prime Minister tell us why the considerations which dictate a merger of health and social security south of the Tweed do not obtain north of the Tweed?

The Prime Minister: They are already co-ordinated. But, as the House knows, it has traditionally been the position that the Ministry of Social Security and its predecessor Ministry is a Great Britain Ministry, not an England and Wales Ministry. That is not the position with the Ministry of Health. We have considered this and decided that it would be wrong to go in for a policy of greater centralisation in this matter, as one of my hon. Friends was fearing might be involved. We are continually looking at the question of the organisation of the Ministry of Social Security to see whether greater decentralisation will be possible.

Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the bringing of the Civil Service under himself will repair a long-standing grievance in other Departments about being over-shadowed by one Department and that this has encouraged resistance to any auditing of efficiency in the Departments by the Treasury? Is my right hon. Friend proposing to put the Organisation and Methods Department for the auditing of efficiency over the whole Civil Service under the supervision of the new Department?

The Prime Minister: I think that perhaps my right hon. Friend underrates what has been achieved under Treasury control of Civil Service management. For example, over the past few years a great deal has been done about organisation and methods and the supervision of efficiency of individual Departments. But it is the intention to transfer the O & M Department of the Treasury to the new Department.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Will the new combined Foreign and Commonwealth Ministry look afresh at the problem of appointing a proportion of ambassadors and high commissioners from ranks outside its own Ministry; in other words, from businessmen and other walks of life?

The Prime Minister: Successive Governments have never been rigid about this matter. There have been some very distinguished appointments filled by ex-officers of the Armed Services, and there have been others appointed under successive Governments even from the ranks of this House, the most recent being the very important appointment of Her Majesty's Ambassador in Paris.

Mr. Roebuck: Disastrous!

The Prime Minister: There will be no change in this. But I think—and I go back to some remarks of Mr. Ernest Bevin, more than 20 years ago—that if we reserve the top jobs in the diplomatic service for outside appointees it will have a bad effect not only on morale but on recruitment and prospects of promotion for those who come into the career diplomatic service.

Mr. Rankin: Now that one Minister will be answering for two different Departments, will this affect Question

Time in the House? Is there not a possibility that the time devoted to Questions may possibly be reduced?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any proposal to reduce the time devoted to Questions. I am not sure whether that question relates to the merger of the social service Departments or to the overseas merger. In both cases there will be one Minister in charge of the merged Departments. He will be assisted—and this will apply at Question Time as well as in other ways—by Ministers of State and others appointed to help him.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of business to get through.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICES (MERGER)

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices.
On the 15th March my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring about the amalgamation of the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Office and in a statement on 28th March he explained to the House the reasons for this.
It was announced on 18th September that the new Office would be called the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and that it would come into being on 17th October this year.
This change, therefore, will take effect from tomorrow, and for the first time in modern history the external affairs of this country will be in the charge of one Secretary of State and one Department. For good historical and political reasons we have been the only country in the world to maintain separate Foreign and Commonwealth Offices.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in April, the time has now come to amalgamate these two Departments. We shall continue to do everything possible to promote good relations with the world community, whether through the United Nations or with


individual countries and groups of countries.
We shall continue to play our full part as a member of the Commonwealth, and to maintain our close association with other Commonwealth Governments. In forming the new Office we have made certain that the interests of the dependent territories will receive the close and sympathetic attention which our responsibility for them requires.
We have not merely put the two existing Departments together: we have examined the tasks of both and constructed a new Office to perform those tasks.
In the planning of the merger, and in the work of both Departments over many years, the country is greatly indebted to the devotion, industry, and skill of its permanent civil servants.
The handling, under Parliament, of the external affairs of this country over the years has called for sensitive judgment, continuous hard work in numerous fields, and the initiation of, and response to, peaceful change—all this in a restless and sometimes violent world. It is in this progressive spirit that the new Department of State will meet the challenge of the future.

Mr. Maudling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in principle, we on this side of the House welcome this change? May I ask questions on two points? As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the interests of the dependent territories and of foreign policy could at times conflict, for example, Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. Now that the dependent territories are no longer to have their own office in the Cabinet, will the right hon. Gentleman say how he can ensure that they will be properly looked after? For example, will their representatives have direct access to him personally, and will he make sure that Questions asked in this House on dependent territories will not be swamped in the generality of foreign policy Questions?
Secondly, on the question of the Ministerial structure, I think that the Prime Minister hinted that the Foreign Secretary might say something about this. Will there be any reduction in the number of Ministers?

Mr. Stewart: I think that the very fact that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that problems of dependent territories and foreign countries often come together is one reason for having the merger. One is better able to deal with these problems in a single Department, but we shall have a dependent territories administrative division in the Office. The spokesman in the Cabinet for the dependent territories will be whoever holds the office which I now hold.
The amount of Question Time available for foreign and Commonwealth affairs is for the House to decide from time to time, and this can be considered through the usual channels, but I think that there are no grounds at all for supposing that the dependent territories will lack attention either in the Office or by the House.
With regard to the Ministerial structure, the number of Ministers in the combined office will be one fewer than those in the two offices at present. I should perhaps mention, though it is going a little beyond the right hon. Gentleman's question, that with regard to the number of civil servants, between the date of the merging of the two services in 1965 and March, 1968, there has been a reduction of 398 posts, and a reduction of a further 100 from March until now, and that I expect further rationalisation to occur.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the new Ministry appears to have got off to a bad start with a clumsy title, as "Foreign" and "Commonwealth Affairs" do not follow alphabetically, and carry the connotation that somehow a foreigner is rather ahead of a Commonwealth citizen? Would not it have been better to call it, rather shortly, the Ministry for External Affairs?

Mr. Stewart: It was suggested to the House some time ago that hon. Members might like to put forward views on this, and a large number of views were put forward. I think that my right hon. Friend will find that he is in a minority. We considered such a title as External Affairs, but it seemed to me that, as the names Foreign Office and Commonwealth Office were known worldwide, and that as the term Foreign Office had a long history it would have been a somewhat colourless alternative to have had


"External Affairs". On the other hand, it would not have been right to have left the words "Foreign" or "Commonwealth" out of the title of the new office.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I think I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that this was not to be a question of putting the two Departments together, but of creating a new office. Will he consider giving Parliament information about the new office by means of a White Paper, or in some other way?

Mr. Stewart: There is available now in the Vote Office an official paper giving something both of the history of the merger and of the organisation of the new office.

Mr. Frank Allaun: My right hon. Friend referred to the problem of a violent and restless world. Several questions have been asked about Question Time. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) and others have, during the last few months, been pressing for an increased allocation of Question Time for foreign affairs Questions which are reached only once every six weeks? Will my right hon. Friend move in that direction, and not in the other?

Mr. Stewart: I was aware of that, but, as my hon. Friend knows, this is not a matter for me alone. It is a matter, in the end, which the House must decide. There is pressure for increased time for Questions to nearly all Departments.

Sir G. Sinclair: I welcome this amalgamation of the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Office, but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has taken this opportunity of considering two matters? The first is the development of the experiment of bringing in from the business field people on secondment to the Foreign Service to act as commercial attachés at our posts in our major trading areas abroad. Trade promotion is an important duty of such posts and many of us feel that experience from business could be well used there.
Secondly, as this amalgamated office of State is now to cover all the developing countries of the world, will the right hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to the appointment of more agricultural

advisers in our posts overseas—as he has done in Kenya, where the effect has been extremely good—because it is to the agricultural and rural sections of these developing countries that much of our aid goes, and where skilled advice on the spot to our high commissioners or ambassadors is important?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be brief.

Mr. Stewart: I note what the hon. Gentleman says about agricultural advisers, but he will notice that we have been under pressure from the House earlier in Question Time to keep down the number of officials.
With regard to bringing people in from outside, a similar question was asked earlier. I think that one must accept that this must be an exceptional procedure. I have found that that part of the Diplomatic Service which is concerned with commercial work does its job very well indeed. This has been drawn to my attention repeatedly while I have been in office, and by experienced businessmen, so, while I do not rule out entirely the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman, I think, in general, that if people enter the Diplomatic Service as a career they must feel that the whole range of jobs is open to them.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: As the Minister is hoping to save money by merging with the Commonwealth Relations Office and reducing the number of civil servants, will he turn his attention to taking over the Ministry of Defence as well?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that my hon. Friend has paid sufficient attention to the economies that have been achieved in that Ministry already.

Mr. James Davidson: On the principle that minorities are sometimes right, may I say I agree with the suggestion put forward by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) that the title "Ministry of External Affairs" might have been a better one?
May I also take this opportunity, on behalf of Members on this bench—and probably many other Members—to pay tribute to the work of the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, who will be relinquishing his post? I very much hope that this thoughtful and


humanitarian attitude will be available to the future Ministry.
Thirdly, can the Minister confirm that appointments within the new office will be made on the basis of the most suitable man for the job, regardless of his antecedents, and which Office he formerly belonged to? Can we be sure that it will be the most suitable man available for each post as it falls vacant?

Mr. Stewart: With regard to the last point, that is already done. The Service have been merged for some time. I appreciate what the hon. Member said about my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary and I am sure that the whole House will agree with him.

Mr. Anderson: Following the merger and the welcome reassessment of policy east of Suez, will there be a consequential reduction in diplomatic personnel overseas, on the lines of the defence cutback? Will my right hon. Friend say something about the implications of the Fulton Report for the new diplomatic service?

Mr. Stewart: It does not follow that if we reduce our military commitments overseas there is necessarily a reduction in diplomatic representation. It might well be argued that the reverse was the case. I have pointed out the reduction in the number of posts that has already occurred, and the House will be aware that a review is now proceeding of our overseas representation.

Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whatever welcome there may be for these proposals it will at least be tinged with some regret that there is to be no diminution in the number of Ministers and no relief of the horrible congestion which only too often exists on the Government Front Bench?

ESTATE AGENTS

4.4 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to estate agents; to make provision for the Estate Agents Council and to confer certain powers thereon; to provide for the bonding of estate agents; and for the safeguarding of clients' money and deposits; and for purposes connected therewith.
The purpose of my proposed Bill is to deal with a situation and a state of the law in which a small minority of unscrupulous sharks can work heartless and monstrous frauds upon innocent home seekers—a situation which the House should not tolerate any longer than is necessary, even more so because the House has been debating this issue for the last 54 years.
As the law stands anybody, no matter what may be his lack of qualifications, can set up business as an estate agent and can receive deposits from the public—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for an hon. Member to speak against the background of conversation.

Mr. Fraser: He can receive deposits from the public on house sales and similar transactions and there can pass on to a totally unqualified person the precious savings of people seeking to buy a house.
There appears to be nothing in the law as it stands to prevent a man devoid of qualifications, training, experience or integrity, or even a man who has been convicted of crimes of dishonesty, from describing himself not only as an estate agent but as a business transfer specialist, a valuer, a surveyor, a management expert and by other titles for which his antecedents provide no justification. There is nothing in the law which protects the public which does business with an estate agent which requires that agent to keep reasonable accounts or any earnest of his honesty or which requires him to observe any code of conduct.
Because of this situation, defalcations have taken place. It would be wrong to go into any detail on this point but it is within my personal knowledge that in London, during the last few years, there have been at least three major


scandals involving the losses of deposits up to £20,000 in each case. Not only has there been a loss of deposits; there have been other results. Unfair profits have been gained by agents where they have had business interests in property; people have been asked to sign binding contracts without first obtaining advice, and there has been incompetence in the handling of accounts—and incompetence and muddle often lead to misappropriation.
This state of affairs is fair neither to the public nor to the vast majority of estate agents who, I emphasise, are fair, reputable and well qualified. Therefore, in the interests of the public and of the reputation of the estate agents profession, I am asking leave to introduce the Bill.
The Bill would provide certain minimum safeguards. First, it will contain proposals to define an estate agent and to ensure that no agent carries on business with the public at large unless he holds certain minimum qualifications and is registered with a central body which can recognise him as being competent and having the right antecedents. I suggest that that body should be the Estate Agents Council as at present constituted.
The second purpose of the Bill would be to establish, by Statute, the authority of the Council and to give it power to lay down standards of competence for estate agents, as well as a code of behaviour; to approve or set examinations for them; to call for honesty bonds for estate agents; and to carry on with statutory authority many functions which are now voluntarily undertaken by it.
In addition to these powers the Bill would provide the Council with powers to make rules, and also with powers of inspection, inquiry, enforcement, and discipline, similar to those powers which are at present possessed by Statute by such bodies as the Law Society. The Council was founded with the expectation that legislation would be forthcoming, and it is ready to perform these functions. It has the support of most professional bodies—10 in all—ranging from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Valuers Institution to the National Association of Estate Agents Limited, and many others.
At present, it has the function of looking at the affairs of estate agents, providing training facilities, setting up a disciplinary committee, and powers at present which it would seem to have reinforced by statute, to provide a compensation fund for those members of the public who might suffer from the dishonesty or incompetence of an estate agent. The Bill will further contain provisions to give the public the same degree of protection when they deposit money with an agent as they at present enjoy when depositing money with a solicitor or stockbroker. This would be by means of providing for honesty bonds to indemnify the public against any losses.
Already the Council has issued over 2,000 such bonds. It is important to protect people depositing money if there is a possibility that they will lose it, because if they lose their money they are robbed not only of cash but often of any hope they may have of obtaining the house which they badly need.
Finally, the Bill will contain provisions making it obligatory for estate agents to maintain a separate client's account in which the client's money must be placed. Already the vast majority of estate agents, like other professional men, maintain separate clients' accounts, but in my submission this should be made a statutory obligation, to be supervised by a professional body, which I suggest should be the Council. Previous attempts at legislation in this House which have been many since 1914, in most cases have not been passed by the end of the Session, but have, nevertheless, been supported by the overwhelming majority of Members.
That fact, the fact that reputable estate agents have already pointed out the need for legislation, and the self-evident anxiety of the public to protect themselves against a minority of unscrupulous persons, indicate that leave should be given to introduce a Bill of this nature.

Question Put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Fraser, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Grant, Mr. Oakes, Mr. Hunt, and Mr. Mackintosh.

ESTATE AGENTS

Bill to amend the law relating to estate agents; to make provision for the Estate Agents Council and to confer certain powers thereon; to provide for the bonding of estate agents; and for the safeguarding of clients' money and deposits; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 25th October and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1

ESTABLISHMENT AND GENERAL DUTY OF FREIGHT CORPORATION

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 1, line 20, at end insert:
by reference to the needs of the person for whom the goods in question are to be carried and to the nature of the goods".

Read a Second time.

4.10 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 1, leave out 'by reference to' and insert:
'and in discharging their duty under subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, to have due regard to any indication of'.
My hon. Friends and I will be moving a good many Motions during the course of the next few days, saying that this House "doth agree" with the Lords and, occasionally, that this House "doth disagree" with the Lords. Without keeping the House from the debate on Lords Amendment No. 1, I should like to say that, in these debates as a whole, there are nine substantial Amendments, put down since the Bill left the Commons, with which we will agree, that there are 30 of substance which we have put into the Bill in response to criticisms by the Opposition, either in the later stages in the Commons or in the Lords, and, finally, that there are 159 Amendments on the Notice Paper which are drafting or consequential Amendments. In this very large Bill, there are only 20 substantial points on which the Government propose to join issue in this House over Amendments made in another place.
This illustrates what my noble Friend, Lord Beswick, said in another place when he paid tribute to the way in which that House had given responsible attention, as always, to the task of improving the Bill. But he went on to say that not all the Amendments made elsewhere should be regarded as improvements. The present Amendment, Lords Amendment


No. 1, is one of those by which we believe that the other place has not improved the Bill, though I believe that we can go some way to meet their wishes. To that end, I suggest the Amendment which I have just moved.
This part of the Bill, as agreed by the Commons, laid on the National Freight Corporation a duty to carry goods by rail wherever such carriage is efficient and economic. Their Lordships then inserted the words:
by reference to the needs of the person for whom the goods in question are to be carried and to the nature of the goods".
The purpose of the Lords Amendment is clear—that the Corporation should respect the needs of its customers if it is to keep its business. That is an objective with which I sympathise and I accept this, but, as it stands, the Amendment goes far further than could have been intended. It places a specific requirement in all cases, which leaves no room for the National Freight Corporation to take other considerations into account. It clearly is not acceptable to require the Corporation to meet demands for services which are quite uneconomic or inefficient in terms of its own operational costs and requirements.
In many cases, of course, the customer will not have any preference between road or rail, and in such cases it would be the Corporation's duty to use rail wherever it regarded this as efficient and economic. Probably, in this and many other cases, the needs of the customer just will not be known and it would be absurd—I do not think that it was, indeed, ever intended—to place on the Corporation the burden of having to try to find out the intentions of the customer—this is what the Amendment would mean—in circumstances in which he did not feel strongly enough about it to express a preference.
In short, what we are saying is that we agree with the Lords' objective, but think that their Amendment goes further than they probably intended. I have, therefore, moved this alternative Amendment, for which, I gather, there is a convoluted formula, to produce a situation in which, I think, the intentions of the Lords are safeguarded but the implications of the wording are made more practical.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I do not think that the debate in another place fully explained the advantages of the Lords Amendment, nor am I confident that the Minister has fully appreciated the point which was intended. It is too often forgotten that transport is always a means to an end and not the end itself, that a person transports himself or his goods from one point to another for a purpose and that the choice of the mode of transport is decided by that purpose.
In some cases, the consignor wants to transport his goods by the cheapest and fastest method, but that is not necessarily the point of the transport. Speed and low cost are not always deciding factors and even the slightly wider words in the Clause—"efficient and economic"—do not really cover the large number of reasons why people wish a particular consignment to go by a particular form of transport.
It would often be a hardship on the consignor if the Freight Corporation so exercised its powers as to secure that goods were carried by rail whenever such carriage was efficient or economic, if the needs of the person for whom the goods in question are to be carried required the goods to be carried by some other means which had nothing to do with efficiency or economy. The debate in another place mentioned a number of instances in which the choice of transport was due to something other than speed or cheapness. It mentioned certainty of timing, avoidance of damage and the fact that less packing material was required by road than by rail. All those matters could be covered by the word "efficient", but there are other reasons which have even less to do with efficiency or economy.
Several times, in the House and on various Committees dealing with transport—I can say, I think, that I have been on every Standing Committee dealing with a transport Bill since 1950—I have drawn attention to a report published by the Traders' Road Transport Association in 1959, which was very interesting and gave a review of the reasons why the Association's members used "C" licence vehicles.
I have never thought that the House has paid enough attention to that Report, which gave some surprising and significant findings. For instance, the majority


of "C" licence holders at that time were not really interested in the cost or the speed of the transport. The certainty of timing was one reason that they gave for using such transport, but many of the users wanted it for quite other reasons.
For instance, many of the consignors wanted their drivers to collect the cash from the consignee and wanted him to be their employee. A substantial number gave advertising on the side of the vehicle as the reason that they wished to use their own vehicle. It is true that from time to time public transport authorities arrange that advertising shall be permitted on the sides of public transport vehicles, but it was stated in that review that they preferred to have their own vehicles to use for such a purpose.
It seems to me that the Bill as printed would have been rather restrictive in that it would not have enabled the Corporation to take cognisance of such considerations and such methods which customers might prefer. There is nothing to prevent people from using a road for all sorts of purposes. The right of a British subject to use a road is the right to pass and repass. It is not stated what the purpose must be. He is perfectly entitled to wander up and down, as the Devil did, according to the first chapter of Job.
Similarly, if a person wants to use transport for purposes which are not confined to efficiency—the words in the Bill are "efficient and economic"—there is no reason why he should not do so. We should allow a little more latitude to the Corporation in meeting the wishes of their customers, and that, I take it, was the intention of the Lords' Amendment.
It does not seem to me that the alteration which the Minister has made is unduly restrictive. It slightly alters the sense of the Amendment and makes it rather more verbose, but provided that the Government interpret it in the sense that it will not be unduly restrictive on the wishes of the customer I do not see much objection to it.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: In introducing his Amendment to the Lords' Amendment, the Minister tried to give the impression that in some way he was being remarkably reasonable and helpful. Would he care

to pause for reflection for a second and consider this Bill as he first brought it to us? There were then 169 Clauses. But 24 of those Clauses have since disappeared—sunk, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) would say, without trace.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not mind a few introductory remarks, but the hon. Member should recall that we are dealing with an Amendment.

Mr. Taylor: I was coming straight to the Amendment, but I felt that a reply had to be made to the Minister's comment.
I would like to point out that no fewer than 750 Amendments to the Bill had been accepted, which proves a point which we have always made—that the Bill was very badly drafted. The improvement in it is a tribute to the strong, effective and dynamic Opposition which we have provided throughout the discussions.
But, Mr. Speaker, as you said, we are discussing only an Amendment and an Amendment to an Amendment. The Minister failed entirely to explain why he wishes to change the Lords' Amendment in this way. The Clause which we are seeking to amend imposes a statutory duty on the National Freight Corporation to secure that goods shall be carried by rail whenever such carriage is, in their opinion, efficient and economic.
Reflecting on some of the Amendments, it is obviously good for the country and certainly good for the Bill that we have a second Chamber to bring some element of sense into what we are doing. In the Lords we tried to obtain some information about what precisely was meant by "efficient and economic". What does the Minister mean by that phrase? What would the Corporation take into account in deciding what was efficient and economic? Before the Amendment was introduced, the Corporation could make a unilateral decision without any reference to the customers' requirements. There was no requirement for the Corporation to consider the needs of the consignor, his special problems or the nature of the goods.
In normal circumstances, if one is faced with such a problem in any service,


one can change the supplier and go somewhere else. One can try some other form of transport. But a very important factor in relation to the Amendment is that in certain instances the Corporation would always be in a monopoly position because, as is provided later in the Bill, there are certain routes which will be their full prerogative. In those circumstances, it is exceedingly important that we should get this right, and before we can even consider supporting the Minister's Amendment to the Lord's Amendment, we must ask him to answer several questions.
First, who will decide what is meant by efficiency and what is meant by economy? Is it simply the Corporation who will decide it? Secondly, he has introduced the words "any indication of". It appears to me, and it has appeared to those of my hon. Friends who follow these matters very closely, that the addition of those words would release the Corporation from the duty to consider the needs of the consumer and his special problems, unless some specific matter were brought to the Corporation's attention by the consignor.
The Minister must explain what he means by "any indication of". I suggest that we could easily leave out his Amendment and there would then be an obligation on the Corporation to have regard to the needs of the customer and to the special problems associated with the goods which are being carried.
Many problems of this kind arise. An example was mentioned in another place—that of a supplier of paper, a Scottish pulp mill, who found from experience that when their goods were carried by rail they tended to be damaged, through no fault of the railway but because of the special way in which they were carried. They would want these factors to be taken into account. Under the Lords Amendment, the Corporation would have to take such matters into account, but the inclusion of "any indication of" appears to leave the Corporation entirely at liberty to ignore the special needs of the customer in deciding whether goods should be sent by road or rail, unless the matter is specifically brought to their attention.
The Lords have carefully considered all these questions and they have presented Amendments which they believe

to be helpful. I suggest that the Minister should not rush in and add words to their Amendments—words which might cause confusion and which might detract from the principle which the Lords are trying to introduce.
The Minister should, therefore, give a clear indication of what he means by the words which he proposes to add. Why did he add "any indication of"? Will the words mean, in practice, that the Corporation is at liberty to do what it likes unless some particular matter is brought to its attention? I feel that the Minister has certainly not improved the Lords Amendment, and I hope that he will explain to us why he has added those words.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I am concerned about the wording of this part of the Bill. In Committee, I spent some time dealing with the special problems of the development areas and, in particular, with the present communications system which arises out of the general higgledy-piggledy historical growth from the latter part of the 19th century in such areas as The Hartlepools and Teesside. I gained from the Parliamentary Secretary on that occasion some general assurance about the need to consider the problems of such areas.
The hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has a point when he asks what is the definition of efficiency and economy. I should understand the situation much more clearly if it were possible to write into the Bill "more efficient than some alternative form of transport" or "more efficient than" something else. But if someone has to take a decision about what is efficient, by itself and without comparison, and if that person has a statutory obligation to enhance the reputation of the National Freight Corporation, obviously there may be areas in which the judgments taken could be prejudicial to the efficiency and economy of what is carried and also of the interests in the area in which it is carried.
A perfect example is the very unfortunate story in recent years of the line between Newcastle. Sunderland, Hartlepool and Darlington, which passes through the most heavily populated areas of the North-East but which has been treated in recent years more or less as a


feeder line because, historically, the main communications lay between Darlington, Durham and Newcastle, a much more thinly populated area. People might, therefore, be forced to put their goods on trains in what have been regarded as feeder services, where even today it takes more than 1½ hours on occasion to travel 21 miles, when obviously alternative forms of carrying the goods could be found.
I agree with the Minister that there could well be a difficulty in making specific references to some of these points, but that argument in itself does not demand support for the Amendment. The objective must be to provide the best possible services. I am sure that the Minister agrees, and the House must agree, that the objective of the Bill is to provide what is best for the transport services. If precise words cannot be written into the Bill to meet all our worries—and they have been expressed on both sides of the House—perhaps in his comments the Minister will give some assurance that our worries will be met in the form of instructions, which we can clearly understand, which can be issued.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The hon. Member said something which I do not think he can possibly mean. He said that the purpose of the Bill was to provide the transport which was best for the transport services. That cannot be right. The objective must be to provide what is best for the customer.

Mr. Leadbitter: I did not know that we wanted to be pedantic about language. It must have been clear that when I spoke about the best possible transport services I was primarily concerned with the customer.

Mr. Peter Bessell: We have had a valuable contribution to the debate from the hon. Member for The Harltepools (Mr. Leadbitter). I am not surprised about that, because we had many valuable contributions from him in Standing Committee. I agree with the first part of what he said, but he will understand that I do not agree so readily with the latter part of his speech.
I am not particularly happy about legislation being conducted by a non-elected body, but as it is part of the Parliamentary system that we accept changes which may be made in Bills in another place, it

follows that it is logical that we should carefully consider the changes suggested by another place in this case. Their Lordships have produced a very important Amendment—one which I think goes to the whole nub of the argument which we had not only in Standing Committee but also on Report in the House. It is a matter to which the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) referred in his first speech on the Bill, on Second Reading.
In the last analysis it is the question whether we are agreed that the customer is best equipped to choose the form of transport to be used for his goods or whether we are prepared to say that that choice will be made by the National Freight Corporation or, indeed, by some other body which may be subservient to the Corporation.
The Minister's objection appears to be that the freedom of the customer should not be paramount in all cases and that the Freight Corporation cannot effectively operate unless it has the last word in this matter. I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman on this aspect because I do not believe that the customer's experience in matters of transporting his goods is likely to be less valuable than that of the officials of the Corporation or that the Corporation will be in a better position to judge what is economical and best for the customer, who must make his living by transporting his goods.
No person will transport his goods by a more expensive means if he is in competitive industry. The industries with which we are concerned are inevitably competitive. It is, therefore, right and in the interests of the national economy that the customer should, in the end, have the final choice. I am sure that that was the intention of their Lordships.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) was right when he made the point, which I have not heard made before, that transport is not an end in itself but is a means to an end. As hon. Members again address themselves to the Bill, we see that the problem which the two Opposition parties have had to confront throughout our debates on the Measure is the Government attitude that transport can be regarded as an end in itself. It cannot. This ideological difference between the two sides of the House


presents itself again in our consideration of the Amendment.
Having said that, I admit that the Minister has shown considerable flexibility. He has gone a long way towards meeting the points made by their Lordships, although it is fair to stress that the point under discussion was made by hon. Members in Committee and on Report. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said that the Minister had not explained the position. I suggest that he explained it too well. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is convinced that it is better to place the final decision in the hands of the Freight Corporation than in the hands of the user. That cannot be right.
The hon. Member for The Hartlepools rightly said that in the development areas there are special problems. These have been recognised by the Government and they have received attention in other ways. It is important that nothing should be done to impede the progress of areas with high unemployment and special social problems. If industry is to be attracted to them, we must do everything in our power to make them attractive to industry. I have particularly in mind areas like Cornwall and my constituency. It is imperative that the freedom of choice which the producer demands for transporting his goods is preserved at all costs. Only the producer can best judge these matters.
The hon. Member for The Hartlepools mentioned transport problems which arise in some areas. I could enumerate similar problems in my constituency. Inadequate road communications and rail services, coupled with other features applying to certain goods, make the question of choice essential to the producer, who is the user, and he alone should be allowed to decide the best means of transport for his goods.
For example, how can the Freight Corporation decide whether it is more efficient and economical to convey wet fish from Cornwall by rail than by road? Decisions of this kind rest on common sense and it is obvious that such a commodity should be conveyed by road under refrigeration conditions. Similar considerations apply to horticultural produce.
While I am glad that the Minister has gone a considerable distance towards meeting the points made by their Lordships, I regret that the Amendment introduced in another place has not been accepted by the Government in toto. If it had been, the Bill would have gone an enormous way towards removing some genuine fears and anxieties which have been caused to industrialists and the users of freight transport by this part of the Bill.

Mr. John Peyton: Many hon. Members find their enthusiasm at the reassembly of Parliament considerably diminished by the fact that having to consider this Measure yet again is their first meal.
I am disappointed that the Minister cannot see his way to accepting the modest, reasonable and sound Amendment proposed by another place. It simply says that the customer's requirements shall be met. In throwing it out, the Minister is saying that he is not so much concerned with the customer as with the tremendous organisation which he is setting up. This organisation has only one merit, which is that it will further enhance the odium in which the present Administration are held throughout the country.
We are being seriously told by the right hon. Gentleman that under Socialism the customer always comes last, or at least comes off second best. I protest against the insertion at the behest of the Minister of what I regard as meaningless waffle. My hon. Friend spoke at length about the phrase "any indication of." I do not like the words "have due regard to." What will this mean if it is seriously contested in the courts by an interested party? How will anyone prove that the Corporation had not had due regard to the factors involved? The Corporation need only produce a rubbishy letter and that will be adequate evidence.

Mr. Webster: In other words, a third-rate answer sent by second-class post.

Mr. Peyton: I hope that my hon. Friend will not insist on making an already disagreeable occasion even worse by unnecessarily referring to the pains of the post.
The Government Amendment is a meaningless concession by which the Minister hopes to expedite the progress


of his horrid Bill. I hope that before we pass from the Amendment hon. Members will insist on having from the Minister a precise explanation of what is meant by the words "have due regard to" and to what extent they could possibly embarrass or even in a slight way inconvenience the Corporation which, at least by present omens, is not likely to be the most sensitive of bodies to the needs of the customer.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I could not appreciate the relevance of the remarks of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). Had he known more about the Bill he would have made a more intelligent contribution. He has well earned the title of chief waffler.

Mr. Peyton: Mr. Peyton rose—

Mr. Manuel: Let me get started before you intervene, John.

Mr. Peyton: Really!

Mr. Manuel: Perhaps a vote of thanks is due to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson). The Front Bench opposite should express thanks to the hon. Gentleman for having raised this matter in the first place, although his efforts were followed by a contribution which can only be described as containing a lot of fresh air, very little deliberation and not much common sense from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). Then the hon. Member for Peyton—

Mr. Peyton: I would be obliged, remembering that the hon. Gentleman resorts to personal abuse on many occasions, if he would be courteous enough to allow that I represent not merely myself but my constituency of Yeovil, too.

Mr. Manuel: That was an excellent contribution and endorses what I said about the hon. Gentleman being our chief waffler. He made out that if the Government Amendment were argued in court it would be meaningless. Is he aware that the Amendment made in another pace was extremely similar to the Government Amendment?
We have here a sincere attempt by my right hon. Friend to appreciate the needs of the customer. I am astonished that that has not been welcomed by hon.

Gentlemen opposite. If this is to be their reaction throughout our discussion at this stage, a great deal of time will be wasted. The Lords Amendment would insert the words:
by reference to the needs of the person for whom the goods in question are to be carried and to the nature of the goods".
My right hon. Friend has deleted the words "by reference to", so that his Amendment reads:
and in discharging their duty under subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, to have due regard to any indication of".
I do not know what more hon. Gentlemen opposite want—that is, unless they wish to stifle the Government's desire that the customer's genuine needs should be considered.

Mr. Bessell: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Amendment should make it clear that there is a statutory obligation on the Corporation to make that its paramount consideration? "Take into account" or "take into consideration" would have been another matter. Such a phrase would not have given the Corporation anything like the same degree of legal obligation.

Mr. Manuel: I am not a lawyer, but l cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. If he knew a little more about railway working, and how we approach these questions in attempting to satisfy customers, he would not speak as he has done. I know of a great area of good will in railway working in trying to satisfy customers. I am quite certain that in operation the Government's wording will present no difficulty at all. If customers want their goods to go another way they should be able to do so, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the basic purpose of using empty railway space where suitable in terms of speed, reliability and cost is a sane one having regard to our overcrowded roads.

Sir George Sinclair: The Lords Amendment represented a radical change of thinking. By a reference to the customer it transferred the onus of deciding what was efficient and economic from the National Freight Corporation. This was the main point. The words "by reference" make it absolutely clear that the decision as to what is efficient and what is economic must be made by reference to the needs of the person consigning the goods. That is a major change


of thinking. If the Minister had accepted it, this would have met a wide range of representations I received in my constituency from haulage contractors and from the National Farmers' Union, which were argued skilfully by my hon. Friends in Committee.
I cannot understand why the Minister will not accept the Lords Amendment. From the point of view of a National Freight Corporation many things may be efficient and many things may be economic, but what about the point of view of the consignor? For instance, a farmer may have heard on the 9 o'clock news, or been given word over the telephone, of changes in the nearby market. He wants to ring up "Old Bill" who for years has been able to turn out before dawn to truck his beasts into a nearby market—

Mr. Manuel: If the road is not blocked by snow.

Sir G. Sinclair: If the channels of this debate are not blocked by interruption, I will go on.
This is of great importance to that person and to his business in raising livestock. It is important, too, that supplies should get to market, at the right time. This, in the end, is important also to the consumer. If the farmer has to put his reasons in writing to some minor official at some decentralised office—

Mr. Manuel: Mr. Manuel rose—

Sir G. Sinclair: I will not give way again.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that he is misleading the House in what he says. Livestock is excluded from the Bill, so the whole point of his illustration is quite wrong.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): That is not a point of order.

Sir G. Sinclair: There are many delicate operations in transport because of the need for care in handling. I have examples from my constituency of goods needing special handling getting broken in transit. It is of vital importance that these considerations should be weighed and it should be an obligation on the

Freight Corporation to weigh them. That is what the words
…by reference to the needs of the person…
consigning the goods means, and that is why the Lords Amendment would very considerably improve a bad Government Bill.
I cannot understand why the Minister wishes to water down that Amendment and put it at third remove by inserting the words:
and in discharging their duty under sub-paragraph (ii) of this paragraph, to have due regard to any indication of".
This would be all very well if the whole of the Ministry's thinking in the Bill had not been to make the Ministry's idea of efficiency and economy the only criterion in the Bill, and then having reluctantly to deal with an Amendment which quite rightly indicates some concern for the consignor.
I do not think that the Minister has gone nearly far enough to meet the Lords Amendment, which seems to me to cover many of the objections made by transport concerns and consignors of goods.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) said that in his experience it had always been the objective of the railway industry to meet the needs of the customer. That may be so, but without the Lords Amendment one of the main objectives of the Clause is not to meet the needs of the customer but to secure that in many circumstances the load will be taken by rail rather than by some other form of transport. The hon. Member betrayed the thinking behind the original Clause when he spoke of putting traffic on the railways and taking it away from the overcrowded roads.
In our submission, the chief objective should be that transport of whatever kind ought to be the handmaiden of industry and trade. That objective is upset by this preoccupation with other objectives. I sincerely hope that the Minister will think somewhat differently from his hon. Friend, and will feel that the paramount need is that transport of whatever form should serve the needs of industry, and that this should be the uppermost consideration. With the Lords Amendment that would be the case, but with the Minister's Amendment superimposed on


it. I am not at all sure that it would be the case.

Mr. Marsh: By leave of the House, I should like to reply to some of the points that have been made because I think there is a misunderstanding of the Government's admirable intentions in relation to this Amendment.
The debate started by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson)—who, I should have thought by common consent, is one of the best-informed Members on this subject—accepting the Amendment, as I understood it, and recognising that it was an improvement on the position as it existed before. Then we had a characteristically gusty speech from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), which is impressed on my mind all the more because I think that it is the first time I have ever heard him make a speech on any subject when he did not introduce the subject of Scottish coal prices. He got rather excited, and then started to set the tone for the rest of the debate.
I agree that the purpose of the National Freight Corporation is primarily to provide a more efficient service for the transport of goods around the country. This is the whole purpose. A number of hon. Members have said that the customer's interests should be paramount, but a lot of customers' interests conflict with each other. The interests of one customer are not necessarily those of other customers as a whole. Someone, therefore, has to decide how the network should run.
What is intended here, and what I think their Lordships very rightly wanted to inject into the Bill, is a specific obligation on the Corporation to take account of the interests of its customers, and their Lordships produced a particular form of wording to achieve this purpose. The point at which we part company with their Lordships, with great regret and sorrow, is not on taking account of the customer's interests but because their Amendment, I am sure unintentionally, would put on the Corporation an obligation and a burden which is just impracticable.
It places a legal obligation upon the Corporation to go to virtually every customer and make an inquiry. The customer may not have any preference. I accept that there will be cases where

the customer has reasons which should be taken into account for preferring a particular mode of transport. However, the vast majority of people are concerned merely with transporting their goods; as long as they get a guarantee that the goods will be delivered whole, quickly, cheaply and in the required time, that is what they are concerned with. They do not care what mode of transport their goods go by.
5.0 p.m.
The Amendment as it emerged from the Lords would place upon the Corporation the obligation in law of finding out from every customer what his requirements were and of discovering in many cases that the customer, if I may put it bluntly, could not care less and had no preference.

Mr. David Webster: Is it not the commercial technique of a sales organisation to find out the desires of a customer?

Mr. Marsh: The hon. Gentleman really cannot pursue this and mean it. It cannot be suggested that it is sensible to place upon a body the duty of going to its customers and saying, "Will you please tell us whether you have any preference?" One assumes that the customer makes his views known. What it is important to have in the Bill is a specific proviso which ensures that the Corporation will take those views into account.
If the House is good enough to support the Government Amendment, and if we have a majority for it—I do not know which way the House will vote on this—the Bill will read as follows:
it shall be the duty of the Corporation—
(a) so to exercise their powers under or by virtue of this Act as, in conjunction with the Railways Board—

(i) to provide, or secure or promote the provision of, properly integrated services for the carriage of goods within Great Britain by road and rail; and
(ii) to secure that, in the provision of those services, goods are carried by rail whenever such carriage is efficient and economic".


With the Amendment it would go on to say:
and in discharging their duty under subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, to have due regard to any indication of the needs of the person for whom the goods in question are to be carried and to the nature of the goods".


That seems to be a reasonable provision to apply. If it had not been that the House has reassembled after a long Recess, I believe that hon. Members would have been more charitable in their attitude to the Amendment.

Mr. Bessell: Does the Minister agree that, in spite of what he has said, the final arbiter is the Corporation?

Mr. Marsh: Of course, because, if I send goods by any private company at present, that company is the arbiter as to whether it will carry my goods in the way I want them carried or whether it will determine this for itself.

Mr. Gower: How can the Minister maintain that statement? He says that if he sends his goods by a private company the company will make the decision. If the Minister sends goods by an alternative company, the odds are that the company has only road haulage: it will not have a railway. How can he make a statement like that and expect the House to accept it?

Mr. Marsh: This is a very simple point. I am sure that hon. Members do not intend to miss the point deliberately but are missing it by accident and by misunderstanding the whole thing. I am saying that, in any relationship between customer and vendor, the vendor is the person who operates for the benefit of the customer and that he has to pay regard to what the customer wants, to maintain his business.
I have moved an Amendment which says specifically that there shall be a legal obligation upon the Corporation
to have due regard to any indication of the needs of the person for whom the goods in question are to be carried and to the nature of the goods".
I do not believe that, on reflection, hon. Members would want to oppose an Amendment which is in line with their wishes and so clearly sensible in the circumstances.

Mr. Webster: When he started about an hour ago, the Minister made himself seem very reasonable to his own satisfaction. A certain amount of obduracy is to be observed on the Notice Paper. In respect of practically every Amendment the Government are to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords

in the said Amendment". So this limpid prose continues for practically the whole of the Notice Paper. To make it palatable, the Minister wants us to believe that he is accepting the Lords Amendment, which, in my opinion, was an excellent one as it stood. The Minister has obviously diluted, the Lords Amendment so that it needs practically nothing. It is this dilution that we thoroughly object to.
The Minister made a very gracious reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Carthcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and said that my hon. Friend had omitted to mention Scottish coal prices. My hon. Friend has authorised me to say that, if the Lords Amendment is not accepted as it stands, Scottish coal prices will rise and for that reason he thoroughly disapproves of the Minister's activity.
We are at least glad that we have not had, for once, an outright objection, particularly in view of what has been said by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), who as usual made his speech from a sedentary position. I did not quite hear what he said, but it seemed to be an autobiographical remark.

Mr. Manuel: Does the hon. Gentleman believe what he has been told by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), namely, that there would be a reduction in coal prices if coal was carried by road? Is the hon. Gentleman so stupid as to believe that?

Mr. Webster: The hon. Gentleman talks about filibustering. Just because the hon. Gentleman filibusters, he should not attempt to get me off the point and make me filibuster. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will make my speech in my own way. Throughout the Committee stage there was constant reference by Government supporters to consultation and to due consideration being paid to the requirements of those employed in the industry. We agreed with this. We accepted it.
We think, equally, that these industries are not there simply to serve the employees. They are there to serve the customer. This is why we are so obdurate about the Lords Amendment as it stands. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter), who has more candour than would get him into


the Diplomatic Service, again rather let the cat out of the bag when he said that it was the industry that should be looked after. It is not. It is the customer who needs to be looked after it is the user.

Mr. Leadbitter: In my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) I defined what I meant by an efficient service as the extent to which it satisfied the customer.

Mr. Webster: After a good deal of persuasion from this side, that was right. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that and keep it as his motto and will vote with us when we divide in support of the Lords Amendment.
In this industry, as in so many nationalised industries, the concentration is on the operational need rather than on the convenience of the user. It is to be seen at present in the Post Office. It is to be seen frequently in the railway industry. It is the besetting sin of nationalised industries. With the removal of the freight liner service from sales, there will be an even greater risk of this happening.
The nationalised industries must be reminded that they are often deficit industries. They are financed by the taxpayer. He is the person they are there to serve. We must not allow anything to dilute the principle that the interests of those that use the railways and the Corporation's facilities are paramount. So is the requirement of the goods, whether

they are perishable commodities, as has been mentioned by agricultural Members, or whether they are frangible commodities that can easily be destroyed. The interests of the users of these services must be considered and must be made paramount.

The Minister greatly worried me when he said that the Lords Amendment in its present form puts an excessive burden on the Corporation in the matter of finding out the intention of the user. Anyone in industry with an adequate sales representative service will find out the needs of the user. I speak as someone who was on the sales side of a monopoly organisation. We were very careful to find out the needs of the user.

This is a monopoly organisation. The man who must use it has no choice. His needs are paramount. We must stand by the Lords Amendment as it stands. It is a valuable Amendment. I congratulate their Lordships on what they have done. Anything which dilutes the principle that the nationalised industries are there for the service of British industry and the British consumer we shall resist, and for this reason we resist the Amendment to the Lords Amendment which the Minister has proposed.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 204.

Division No. 291.]
AYES
[5.10 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Brown,Bob(N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dewar, Donald


Albu, Austen
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Buchan, Norman
Dickens, James


Alldritt, Walter
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dobson, Ray


Anderson, Donald
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Doig, Peter


Archer, Peter
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Ashley, Jack
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Cant, R. B.
Eadie, Alex


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Coe, Denis
Ellis, John


Barnes, Michael
Coleman, Donald
Ennals, David


Baxter, William
Concannon, J. D.
Ensor, David


Beaney, Alan
Conlan, Bernard
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Bence, Cyril
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Faulds, Andrew


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Crawshaw, Richard
Fernyhough, E.


Bidwell, Sydney
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Finch, Harold


Bishop, E. S.
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Blackburn, F.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Ford, Ben


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Forrester, John


Booth, Albert
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Fowler, Gerry


Boston, Terence
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Freeson, Reginald


Boyden, James
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gardner, Tony


Bradley, Tom
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Garrett, W. E.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Ginsburg, David


Brooks, Edwin
Delargy, Hugh
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dell, Edmund
Gourlay, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dempsey, James
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)




Gregory, Arnold
McBride, Neil
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Grey, Charles (Durham)
McCann, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
MacColl, James
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
MacDermot, Niall
Robinson,Rt.Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Macdonald, A. H.
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow,E.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McGuire, Michael
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Roebuck, Roy


Harper, Joseph
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackie, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mackintosh, John P.
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Hazell, Bert
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
McNamar, J. Kevin
Sheldon, Robert


Heffer, Eric S.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hilton, W. S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Short,Rt.Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Hooley, Frank
Manuel, Archie
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mapp, Charles
Silverman, Julius


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Marks, Kenneth
Slater, Joseph


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Marquand, David
Small, William


Howie, W.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Spriggs, Leslie


Hoy, James
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mayhew, Christopher
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Mendelson, J. J.
Swain, Thomas


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Millan, Bruce
Swingler, Stephen


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Symonds, J. B.


Hunter, Adam
Moonman, Eric
Taverne, Dick


Hynd, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thornton, Ernest


Janner, Sir Barnett
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Tinn, James,


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Roland
Tomney, Frank


Jeger, George (Goole)
Neal, Harold
Urwin, T. W.


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Newens, Stan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Oakes, Gordon
walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, w.)
Ogden, Eric
Watkins, David (Consett)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
O'Malley, Brian
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)



Oram, Albert E.
Weitzman, David


Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham, S.)





Orbach, Maurice
Wellbeloved, James


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Orme, Stanley
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Oswald, Thomas
Whitaker, Ben


Judd, Frank
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Kelley, Richard
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Wilkins, W. A.


Kenyon, Clifford
Padley, Walter
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Paget, R. T.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Kerr, Russell (Feitham)
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lawson, George
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Leadbitter, Ted
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pavitt, Laurence
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Winnick, David


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pentland, Norman
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Woof, Robert


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Lipton, Marcus
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Yates, Victor


Lomas, Kenneth
Price, William (Rugby)



Loughlin, Charles
Probert, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rankin, John
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rees, Merlyn
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barttston Ash)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dance, James


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)


Astor, John
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Awdry, Daniel
Bryan, Paul
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Doughty, Charles


Balniel, Lord
Burden, F. A.
Eden, Sir John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Batsford, Brian
Campbell Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Bell, Ronald
Carlisle, Mark
Errington, Sir Eric


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Cary, Sir Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Channon, H. P. G.
Farr, John


Bessell, Peter
Clegg, Walter
Fisher, Nigel


Biffen, John
Cooke, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Fortescue, Tim


Black, Sir Cyril
Corfield, F. V.
Foster, Sir John


Blaker, Peter
Costain, A. P.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan


Bossom, Sir Clive
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Crowder, F. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Currie, G. B. H.
Glyn, Sir Richard


Braine, Bernard
Dalkeith, Earl of
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.







Goodhart, Philip
Loveys, W. H.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Goodhew, Victor
Lubbock, Eric
Robson Brown, Sir William


Gower, Raymond
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Grant, Anthony
MacArttuir, Ian
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Grieve, Percy
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Scott, Nicholas


Gurden, Harold
Maddan, Martin
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maginnis, John E.
Silvester, Frederick


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Sinclair, Sir George


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marten, Neil
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maude, Angus
Stainton, Keith


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mawby, Ray
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hastings, Stephen
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Tapsell, Peter


Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Hay, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Monro, Hector
Teeling, Sir William


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Montgomery, Fergus
Temple, John M.


Heseltine, Michael
More, Jasper
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Tilney, John


Hill, J. E. B.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Murton, Oscar
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Hordern, Peter
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Waddington, David


Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nott, John
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hunt, John
Onslow, Cranley
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wall, Patrick



Orr-Ewing, sir Ian
Walters, Dennis


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Ward, Dame Irene


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Webster, David


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Jopling, Michael
Pearson, sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Percival, Ian
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Kershaw, Anthony
Peyton, John
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Kimball, Marcus
Pink, R. Bonner
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)




Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kitson, Timothy
Pounder, Rafton
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lambton, Viscount
prior, J. M. L.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pym, Francis
Woodnutt, Mark



Quenneil, Miss J. M.
Wylie, N. R.


Lane, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Younger, Hn. George


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rees-Davies, W. R.



Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Humphrey Atkins and


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Longden, Gilbert
Ridsdale, Julian

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2

GENERAL POWERS OF FREIGHT CORPORATION

Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 3, line 15, leave out "hover vehicles" and insert "hovercraft".

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be for the convenience of the House if we take with it Lords Amendments Nos. 32, 41, 42, 43, 174, 175, 194, 195, and 197.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House agrees, so be it.

Mr. Marsh: There is nothing controversial in the Amendments, which are purely to substitute "hovercraft" for "hover vehicles", bringing the references

hovercraft into line with the Hovercraft Act, 1968.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4

TRANSFER TO FREIGHT CORPORTION OF CERTAIN SECURITIES, RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES

Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 4, line 42, leave out paragraph (b).

Read a Second time.

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Since they are related Amendments, I wonder whether we might take with it Lords Amendments Nos. 4 to 28, and No. 204.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House agrees, so be it.

Mr. Marsh: We are here concerned with an argument about which hon. Members on both sides of the House feel very


strongly. The Amendment is intended to delete from the Bill the provision for setting up a freightliner company and the transfer of 51 per cent. of its securities. together with the British Railways Board's holding in Tartan Arrow, to the National Freight Corporation.
The objections can be summarised under two heads. It is said that the Railways Board is being treated unfairly, and that there are severe implications for morale. The second objection, which was put very strongly in another place by Lord Beeching, among others, is that it is fundamentally wrong to divide production and marketing between two different bodies.
I do not think that the first objection would stand up. It can hardly be claimed, whatever else is said about the Government or the Bill, that either is based on an anti-railway concept. I know that the people in the industry feel very strongly and emotionally involved in it. One of the main themes of the Bill is the recognition all the way through of the need to give the railways a new start by relieving them of the unfair burdens which history has tended to place on the industry. That is why compensation for social obligations is provided for, and why there is a more sensible capital structure for the industry.
On the freight side, we are in the process of taking away one of the biggest headaches of railway management, the sundries operations, which have probably been the industry's most difficult sector, and one of its biggest loss-makers, for many years. They are being transferred to the Freight Corporation, not to please the railways—though I am sure that this is an activity the railways would not be unhappy to lose—but because in our view these operations can best be handled as a road and rail operation integrated under the Corporation.
The same argument applies to the transfer of the freightliners. This is not done to upset British Railways. That would be an absurd suggestion, but one can understand the feeling in some parts of the House on this subject. What we are trying to achieve is an integrated freight transport organisation, and that means that we must transfer some activities from one industry to the new Corporation. I can understand the strong

feelings about the issue, because the British Railways Board deserves the highest praise for pioneering the imaginative freightliner concept, which was not only produced but highly successfully developed by it.
We accept that rail haulage is an important part of the service, but it is not the total service. It is in recognition of the important part that the railway service will play in this new arrangement that the Board will have a 49 per cent. stake in the freightliner company. It will have members on the board, and it will have a share of the undoubted profits which will accrue from this imaginative new organisation.
I think that Lord Beeching's organisational argument is probably the more substantial one, and I shall deal with this at some length. Unlike Lord Beeching, I regard the separation of the production and marketing of the freightliner service as essential if the service is to be as efficient as we all want it to be. The railways have an incredibly complex job. They have the task of developing a network in response to modem needs in an industry where technology is changing rapidly, and they have to face changes in their financial structure.
5.30 p.m.
Of course, the freightliner system will be much more than just a part of the railway system. Indeed, I think it would probably be to its disadvantage if it became just a part of a very large organisation with complex problems. The freightliner system is a hybrid, relying to a very large extent on efficient collection and delivery by road, and it is this combination together which makes it essential that the new body should have knowledge and understanding of and involvement with road haulage as such. The whole concept of the freightliner company, which has been combined to take maximum advantage of railway facilities to transfer freight over long distances at high speeds and at low costs with retailing of those services, is of a very different task from the normal work which is done by the British Railways Board, and in our view for this task the National Freight Corporation is much better suited, partly because the freightliner road services will be themselves users of the services. In an earlier debate, which I do


not want to start all over again, there was strong pressure that the various services should be combined together.
The Freight Corporation will inherit from the Transport Holding Company very wide experience of the methods and the flexibility of the road haulage industry. It does not seem that there is anything particularly unnatural in the separation of the two basic functions of production and selling. They require different skills; they require different contacts, which hon. Members opposite know are a very important part of any business; and, of course, they require a different outlook. There are very many other spheres in which businesses do not retail the goods or services they produce, but in which they specialise in mass producing goods or services which will in turn be part of goods or services for others to retail. This is fairly common practice in industry generally.
The railways have always concentrated their attention, quite rightly, on providing tailor-made facilities for large industrial concerns, and the freightliner service is already linked to private hauliers who bring traffic to the freightliners, exactly as the National Freight Corporation will do.
I think it is important not to fall into the trap of believing that the National Freight Corporation is intended to be simply a continuation of the Transport Holding Company shorn of its bus subsidiary but with the addition of railway sundries. If this were all it were to be, there would not be very much to be said for it on the concept of an integrated freight organisation. The freightliner services are an essential part of that body if such a body is to exist. If this were not so, we would have virtually the Transport Holding Company which had just sundries in exchange for having lost its buses.
For these reasons I think there is a very strong case indeed for the transfer to take place. I recognise that men who have been very much involved in the development of a highly successful section of the railway industry will see it pass over to a company—in which they have a sizeable holding—with some regret; but I think that if we are to have a National Freight Corporation, and once that decision is taken, then, for the reasons which I have detailed, as its very basis is to integrate the operations of both

road and rail and handling of freight, to have a freight corporation which did not have this highly crucial part of the freight movement business would reduce it to such a state that one would wonder if there was any real purpose in having the Corporation at all. [Interruption.] I know the hon. Gentleman does not agree. There are many things, I regret to say, on which he takes a mistaken and wrong-minded view. Leaving aside his objections, I would say that, now that we have agreed to have a National Freight Corporation, I think it is essential that it should have as one of its major operations this very large, highly successful, crucial sector of freight movement.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: There will be bitter disappointment throughout the railways that the Minister has proceeded with his inflexible, ideological approach to this question. It is a very important matter affecting the future morale and efficiency of the railways, and I think it is tragic that the Government should have taken this course. They have had a long hot summer to think over this matter and I forecast that there will be a winter of discontent on the railways when the implications of this decision are realised. The freightliner service has a great future. I think it is clear to all informed opinion that the Government's present plans will be a savage blow to the morale and efficiency of the railways.
Everyone who takes an interest in the railways is aware that the freightliner service is the brightest jewel in their crown. It has had dynamic growth and is a terrific success, started off, built up, and exploited by the railways themselves, and it is surely criminal folly, at a time when we are trying to build up the railways, that the Government are going ahead with this decision. Look at the growth since the service was inaugurated in November, 1965. The freightliner network has expanded to 20 terminals, four container ports, and 45 routes with services to Ireland and to Europe. The plans at present are, if the Government's cuts, which they so often put on the railway industry, are not carried out, to carry this progress forward to 25 terminals, five container ports and 80 routes by 1970.
The railways are so proud of their achievements—their very real achievements—that they constantly publish documents of one sort and another to


show how well they are doing. In my mail this morning I had one such document entitled, "Freightliner: New Transport System for the Haulage Industry". This shows what wonderful progress has been made. Hon. Members on both sides, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) after his splendid speech on postal problems, will be interested to know that on the third page of the document there is stated a grim warning. To show how serious the warning is, there is a very large red circle, and inside that circle it is stated:
The freightliner is faster than the post so make sure you give your customer ample warning that you sent freight by freightliner.
When this was drawn up, this was a very real boast but I am sure that developments in the postal services make an enormous contribution to show how the freightliners are faster than the postal services. The point is that real progress has been made.
Did the Minister give us any real reason for his decision? The White Paper on the transport of freight stated that the basic objective of Government policy must be to improve the efficiency of the whole transport system and that nowhere was this more urgent than in the field of freight. Can the Minister give us any explanation how those objectives will be achieved by transferring the freightliners to the N.F.C. and depriving British Railways of the right to sell services and to develop the large market?
It is generally recognised by all informed opinion that it is wrong to split the two basic functions, the production of services and the selling of services, because the two are complementary. That is not just my opinion. Far from it. The whole weight of opinion in the railway industry—among the unions, the men, the Board—is that this is a stupid action, to separate the production of services and the selling of services.
To give a few examples of that opinion, Lord Beeching in another place on 11th June said that
it is an organisational absurdity to bring about deliberately a situation in which the two classes, production and selling, are split between two large separately accountable Corporations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 11th June, 1968; Vol. 293, c. 89.]

Lord Beeching certainly knows more about the railways than most of us in this House. He does not say that this was wrong; he does not criticise it mildly: he says it was an organisational absurdity.
Then we had Sir Stanley Raymond, who was in charge of British Railways, and who wrote a savage article in the Sunday Times, describing the decision as a foolish step, and there was Lord Robertson, who also at one time was in charge of the railways, and also condemned this proposal, and very much so, in the other House. So it would seem that all informed opinion which has been at the top of British Railways has condemned this.
Where does the Minister give us any contrary opinions? He quoted not one. There are within the confines of this House and the other place many hon. Members and noble Lords who have had much experience of railway work. The noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, in another place said:
…to make this freightliner service successful and to keep it the success that it is I think, deeply and sincerely, that it should definitely be under the control of one authority I believe that the marketing and selling of goods should be an integral policy in this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 24th June, 1968; Vol. 293, c. 1145.]
Here we have informed opinion in another place saying precisely the same. In this House the same view has been put forward by railwaymen with knowledge and experience. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) has just come in; it enables me to quote a reference from the splendid speech which he made on Report. He said:
Much has been said about the railwaymen, but in my experience—I know this is true of the major railwaymen's union—railwaymen are not in favour of dividing the freightliner service from the railway service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 1359.]
The former head of British Railways, hon. Members and noble Lords in the other place, people with experience, have all said that this is a foolish step, and a step which will deal a blow to the railways.

Mr. Manuel: Would the hon. Gentleman take it from me that what the rank


and file railwaymen, especially the locomotive staff, are concerned about is the growing volume of traffic coming on to the railways? The more successful freightliners are, the more work they will have and so further redundancies will be a voided.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) says that the railwaymen are shortsighted and looking only to the work and to their wages at the end of the week. Far from it. My experience has been more in line with that of the hon. Member for Attercliffe, that the railwaymen are largely concerned with the future of the industry; they want it to grow, they want it to be efficient and they want the Board to exploit the developments which they have achieved. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire is very much out of touch with the feeling of railwaymen in this country. The hon. Member for Attercliffe is more in touch with the feeling of the railwaymen than is the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. Here we have the situation of a man who knows a great deal about the railways, and who is in contact with the railways, supporting the Government in something which is universally condemned by those who have the real interests of the industry at heart. Let us discount, as many of us do, what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire has said in these debates.
Who is in support of the move? Is the Railways Board in support of it? Are former Chairmen of British Railways in support of it? Are the trade unions in support of it? Are the users in support of it? No single body or person is in support of it. The Minister cannot even scrape the barrel and find a "little Neddy" to support it. It seems that only the gnomes of St. Christopher House and the Luddites of the Labour Party led by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire support it. The Government's decision is wrong, it will make a mark on the railways and inflict damage.
Sound arguments should have been put forward by the Government which we could deal with, answer and, if we could, parry, but what arguments have been put forward by the Minister today? We have had only the same arguments

which he advanced on Report and which he put in one sentence:
…because of all the evidence of the interaction of the service in relation to transport."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 1360.]
He said this again today. I did not know what it meant on 27th May and I still do not know.
One serious argument was put forward by the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Ronald Atkins), and by Lord Winterbottom in another place, as to whether the railways were able to exploit this wonderful new system. Lord Winterbottom expressed his doubt when he said:
The Railways Board will concentrate on what it can do best, which is the wholesale activity of providing bulk transport by the train load; and the Freight Corporation will be the retailer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 24th June, 1968; Vol. 293, c. 1142.]
He was expressing serious doubt as to whether the Railways Board had the men, the ability and the knowledge to exploit this system.
5.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Preston, North said:
Of course, the Railways Board has shown success in the operation of the freightliners, but so far the system has barely been tapped."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 1358.]
Members on this side took exception to that because they felt, as some people have felt, that these words could be taken as a vote of no confidence in the railway management's ability to exploit this particular market. We on this side do not share this view. We feel that the railways are more than able to exploit this splendid asset.

Mr. Marsh: In all fairness, I think the hon. Member should not put into the mouths of other persons in other parts of the House sentiments which they do not have and which he knows full well they do not have. The spokesman in the other place was saying what I have said here, that these are two different jobs. This does not decry the capability of the British Railways Board and the capabilities and capacity of its staff. All we are saying—the hon. Gentleman may agree or disagree—is that there are two different jobs here and it is sensible to separate them. At no time has anyone


cast a reflection on British Railways Board; they have done a splendid job

Mr. Taylor: If hon. Members mention statements of opinion it is usual to quote them, and in each case I have quoted them. I have made a point of not expressing my opinions but of simply reading what was said in another place, in this House, and by people who have previously served in British Railways.

Mr. John Hynd: The hon. Member has suggested that my speech was in the words in which he paraphrased it. It certainly was not. I challenge him to find anything in that speech which suggests that a difference of opinion as to the best formation for this organisation is a denunciation of the efficiency of the Railways Board.

Mr. Taylor: I have the OFFICIAL REPORT in front of me for that day. Would the hon. Gentleman explain what he meant by saying:
When I hear my hon. Friends saying that the railway administration is not capable of selling the freightliners, I ask them to reconcile that with the record of the railways in achieving this success."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May, 1968, Vol. 765, c. 1359.]
These were the words he used, and he was disagreeing with his hon. Friends. Certainly, we on this side do not share that view. We have full confidence in the ability of British Railways to exploit this themselves, and we think that it is a scandal that something which they have built up so well should be transferred.
What are the dangers of the move, apart from those that I have mentioned? It will be another reorganisation, and this Government are obsessed with reorganisation and integration. I know the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) will share this view, since he has mentioned this often in the splendid speeches he has made about the railways in this House. The Government are always setting up commissions, councils, boards and study groups for the purpose of achieving more integration, more reorganisation, and, of course, more committees. The railways are getting fed up to the teeth with the amount of reorganisation, the transferring of responsibility and so on. At least when we were in power we gave the railways a

once-for-all opportunity to get going and to solve their problems.
We know the kind of railways that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire wants. He wants them to go ahead and shuffle along in a subsidised dehumanised way. We believe in giving the railways an inducement to go ahead and to become a progressive organisation. Will the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire explain—I know the investment allocation for the railways has been cut savagely on many occasions—how he can justify the delays in electrification that have taken place? If he really had the interests of the railways at heart, he would try to do some good for them, as this party did, by giving them money to invest in progressive items and so provide the railways with a dynamic future rather than letting them shuffle on with more and more subsidies providing a poorer and increasingly inefficient service.
Here we have yet another reorganisation and, bearing in mind the low morale in parts of the railways as a result of successive reorganisations, I suggest that any new reorganisation should be justified fully. The present proposal is one which has not been justified at all.
Another danger which I and my hon. Friends who are friends of the railways see is, whether the Minister likes it or not, that the National Freight Corporation will be a road-dominated service. In terms of profitability, mileage and capital investment, because of its origin and the way that it is constructed, the National Freight Corporation will be a road-dominated service. I can see no value or merit in transferring what is the brightest jewel in the crown of the railways to an organisation which inevitably will be a road-dominated one.
Quite apart from that, those of us who are friends of the railways—always excluding the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire—are conscious of the fact that top management in the railways is a problem. Because of the policies of this Government and the real problems that the railways have faced, it has been difficult to persuade bright young men that there is a dynamic future in the railways. As a result, it has been difficult to attract the best management into the


industry. With the freightliner service, the railways had one real growth point, and there they succeeded in attracting some of the best brains and skills to the industry.
Certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) and I were glad to have a tour of British Railways and to meet some of the men engaged in the freightliner service. We were most impressed by the calibre of the management and the job being done. If the service is to be taken away from the railways, we shall deprive them of this management skill, because it will no longer be available to the railways as such. These top men will be employed by the Freight Liner Company, which will be a separate entity. Thus there is a real danger of diverting from the railways the skilled top management which has been carefully attracted and nurtured.
Perhaps the most important point, however, is morale. Despite the intense loyalty of the men on the railways, it has not been easy to keep morale high when, necessarily, there have been line closures, reductions of service and so on. It is very difficult to keep morale high in an organisation which necessarily must be contracting. In those circumstances, how foolish it is for the Government to take away from a contracting service one of the very real growth points. It has experienced a dynamic growth recently, and it has far greater growth to come in the future. There could not be a worse decision for the morale of the railways. Even if we discount all the factors of organisation and the other arguments advanced so powerfully by my hon. Friends, surely the morale of the railways should weigh heavily in the Government's minds.
Investment is another factor. So long as the freightliner service is part of British Railways, they have a better chance of getting new investment. The railways management is very conscious of the great potential of the freightliners. Despite all the Government's silly words about being friends of the railways, they have a scandalous and shameful record in railway investment. They have starved the railways of investment. The figures have gone down, despite the reduction in the value of money. We all remember that great exercise in the wastepaper campaign, the National Plan. That laid down

specifically that £135 million a year was needed as a minimum for railway investment up to the 1970s. As a result, for 1966 it was down to £120 million. In 1967, it came down to £104 million. In the last squeeze, the Government lopped another £5 million from the 1968 allocation, and another £11 million from the 1969 allocation.
The future of the railways depends on getting investment in the growing parts of them. The Government have dealt a great blow to morale and the future efficiency of the railways by bringing forward this proposal.
We have put forward similar arguments before in this House, in Committee and in the other place. Sometimes we have had fiery arguments. At other times we have discovered real and important issues of significance and importance to one of our greatest industries. We on this side of the House are convinced that this proposal is a major blunder which will reduce morale in the railways and serve no useful purpose. We know that many hon. Members opposite share our view. We know that the chairman and former chairman of British Railways, the Railways Board and the National Union of Railwaymen do. All those interested in fighting for the future of the railways share it. In those circumstances, I would appeal to the Government to think again. They are making a major mistake, and it is one which will be opposed by us all the way.

Mr. Tom Bradley: I am second to none in my general support for the Transport Bill, but I have never disguised my unhappiness about certain aspects of it. Therefore, I take this opportunity to express my serious misgivings about the Government's intentions in respect of the Freightliner Division of British Railways, but I hope that I shall not become involved in the emotional and florid language that we have heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), although his unsolicited tribute to me has rather preempted the force of what I have to say.
I gained the impression from what my right hon. Friend said today that the only reason why the Government had created this Freightliner Company and were placing it under the control of the


National Freight Corporation was because if they did not the National Freight Corporation would be rather under-weighted—

Mr. Marsh: No.

Mr. Bradley: I am sorry if I do my right hon. Friend an injustice. That was my impression.

Mr. Marsh: Then let me hasten to correct that impression. I did not say that, having got the National Freight Corporation, it would be a good idea to give it something to do, but that the basic concept of this part of the Bill rests on the integration of a freight system and that, without the freightliners, the National Freight Corporation could not do the job that it was set up to do. If one believes in the system which lies behind the National Freight Corporation, this transfer has to go through. The intention is not to give it a job. It is crucial to the whole concept.

Mr. Bradley: Well, we could all argue about that. However, I am glad that my right hon. Friend has cleared up that misunderstanding. But, whatever gloss may be put upon it, the fact remains that part of the responsibility for the freightliners is being removed. This concept of a divided responsibility is bad commercial practice, and there seems to be very little doubt about that among the authorities competent to pass judgment on it. It has been condemned particularly by Sir Stanley Raymond and Lord Beeching.
I cannot think of any other commercial organisation where the production and selling sides of the business are under different bosses. No one is suggesting that British Railways should provide their inter-city passenger services while another organisation sells them, and it seems equally illogical to extend that kind of principle to the freight side.
6.0 p.m.
I can envisage a great number of practical difficulties which are not in the interests of promoting efficiency on the railways. British Railways, for many years, have spent a lot of time and a good deal of public money in building up sales and marketing organisations. The future of those organisations is now in peril. We are all a little vague about

the future form of those organisations and how they will survive under the National Freight Corporation.
There is the question of the occupation of the permanent way. This is not an easy matter to determine. It has to be properly planned and diagrammed in advance. The railways are not in a position to suddenly take on loads of traffic which is brought to them from other organisations without proper warning or effective planning. There has to be careful dovetailing of commercial and operating practices. That is why it is fundamentally wrong to divide the responsibility in the manner being suggested.
Serious differences of opinion might arise on the board of the new Freightliner Company. What is convenient for the railways may not always be ideal from the National Freight Corporation's point of view. In theory we all know that both British Railways and the National Freight Corporation will have an interest in the success of the Freightliner Company, but this interest may well be diluted because British Railways are no longer able to influence directly the amount of traffic that it is to carry. The National Freight Corporation will be only too well aware that only 50 per cent. of the profits will accrue to it when it is seeking to disperse such traffic as it may attract. The temptation will rest with it, despite what is said in Clause 1, to send traffic by road and secure an undivided profit.
Will the railways in future seek to encourage customers to send goods on their existing wagon load arrangements, which I understand are to be left to them, although again the situation for the future is a little vague, rather than by the freightliner process? In other words, are they to keep as much full load traffic within their overall control as is possible? I can see a division of opinion even within the railways' own domestic field of operation.
Will the National Freight Corporation representatives on the Freightliner Company show enthusiasim to invest new money in rail liner development when one of the concerns affected will almost most certainly be the long distance haulage section of the National Freight Corporation?
It makes it even more imperative for the Minister to appoint to the National Freight Corporation and the Freightliner Company people who have a proper approach to co-ordination and public ownership if we are to achieve the basic objectives laid down in the Bill.
Finally, I should like to mention a point which is worrying many of us. There are a great many railwaymen—I say this with due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel)—who are—

Mr. Manuel: Railway clerks.

Mr. Bradley: Really! There are a great many railwaymen who are very unhappy at the prospect of transferring not just to a nominal employer, but to a new employer, involving, as it does—and we on the trade union side have been though this process many times since the war—serious disruption in a man's promotional opportunities, seniority and other entitlements which flow from his present occupation. Therefore, we are not happy about the prospect, on January 1st, of transferring to an entirely new employer unless we are to have certain safeguards. That is why, in recent weeks, there have been very delicate, tense discussions on securing for existing railway personnel who pass over to the new National Freight Corporation the facility of an option to return to railway employment should they so desire.
If this is carried to its extreme, from where will the staff to man the new Freightliner Company and, for that matter, the whole gamut of the operations of the National Freight Corporation be recruited? I would remind my right hon. Friend that many new freightliner depots remain to be built. It will be interesting to see from where they will recruit staff if existing railwaymen desire to return to their former employer, the Railways Board. It will mean that the Freightliner Company—indeed the National Freight Corporation itself—can only recruit off the streets or from existing railway personnel. Whether some of my hon. Friends like it or not, the fact remains that existing railway personnel are not happy about being compelled to change the name of their employer and all that it involves at pre-

sent. Therefore, we could have serious difficulty in future concerning labour relations.

Mr. Marsh: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not intend to overstate his case too extremely. I recognise my hon. Friend's problems, but is he really suggesting that men who are employed in a particular job in particular surroundings will in many cases find themselves in grave difficulties because the name has changed? This is a problem which has been faced before.

Mr. Bradley: It goes much deeper than that. Promotional prospects on the railways depend not only on suitability, but on seniority. If railway personnel suddenly find themselves drawn together with British Road Services personnel in the new organisation, their seniority rights, as well as their suitability, become seriously disturbed regarding future opportunities. I ask my right hon. Friend to believe me when I say that there is a deep human problem here.
Until recently the Railways Board was rather unhelpful about giving the facility of an option to return to its employment to personnel going over to the National Freight Corporation. That option has now been secured, but only for a limited period of time. If everyone exercises that option and returns to railway employment, from where will the new organisation recruit its staff? This leads me to my final point.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Bradley: It is a hard choice for me. I think it will probably be fair to the three hon. Members who are seeking to interrupt me if I continued my speech, because I have almost finished.
This leads me to my final point. I have said time and again, not only in this House but in the country, that it would have been better basically to have had an overall transport authority to achieve the kind of co-ordination that we all want. Had British Railways been able to retain wholly what I agree is one of their proudest possessions, they could have gone on planning and developing and exploiting liner trains. It would have been better for the men's morale, for the prestige of the industry and for the managerial prospects of senior management.


I felt compelled to make those remarks, because I am genuinely worried about the situation. I can only hope, having expressed those reservations, that time will prove me wrong.

Mr. Peyton: I am sure that the whole House will wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) on a very remarkable speech, even if we did not agree with everything in it. We all admit the cogency of his argument. His success in moving the Minister from his seat was at least a partial success. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not go a bit further and move his right hon. Friend to acceptance of his argument.
I have often thought that it would be very nice if there were some high authoritative tribunal which had the power to arraign politicians and confront them with the consequences of their arrogant and often ignorant intrusions into industry. I am sorry the Minister is going out, because I had hoped that, as the Minister responsible for nationalising the steel industry, he might spare a moment to listen.
I make no exception as to party here, although I think the Conservatives have been less guilty than the Socialists, for obvious reasons. But, concerning the railway industry, I am certain that if the kind of tribunal I have in mind could be composed of successive chairmen of railway companies and those who have presided over the fortunes of the nationalised railways since nationalisation and they had the chance of saying what was the biggest curse with which they had to contend while they held a high and difficult position, they would, one and all, say, "Interference from the Government." Practically no Government in the history of the railways have been able to refrain from casting their quota of spanners into the works. I cannot think of anything more disappointing than for railway men, at any level, to experience this constant interference, backed by a calamitous and colossal ignorance.
Here we have a situation with which we never thought we would be faced, that of a Socialist Government decapitating a nationalised industry, pinching its wallet, and going away with the best things that it has. Just think of the wave of disapproval, the real shriek of pain,

which would have been wrung from the party opposite if a Conservative Government had tampered with a really successful venture.

Mr. Peter Mahon: Can we take it from what the hon. Gentleman is saying that he is not in favour of a nationalised industry being decapitated?

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman is terribly clever. I cannot think where his intervention gets him. The best service that I can render the House is to ignore the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
What would the Socialist Party have said if we had meted out this kind of treatment to the railways? What would hon. Gentlemen opposite have said if a Tory Minister had ignored the opinions of such men as Lord Robertson, Lord Beeching, and Sir Stanley Raymond? These men are waved aside. The Minister hardly thinks it necessary to consider their views. The right hon. Gentleman says that he will have to deal with this point because they are against the course of action which he is advocating. He refers to the argument, but he does not go into details. He does nothing to refute the immense weight of opinion which those men must carry. With such an attitude I think that the Minister and his colleagues must stand convicted of the most unpardonable errors.
One thing that one can always say to the right hon. Gentleman is that he is a highly skilled Parliamentarian. One of the achievements of Conservative Opposition during the course of the Steel Nationalisation and Transport Bills was to make the Minister into a skilled Parliamentarian. He had to face Parliament with two quite intolerable propositions and in the course of that he became a skilled Parliamentarian.
The right hon. Gentleman says to the Opposition, "I accept that you do not want a Freight Transport Corporation, but you have got one and you must give is something to do". The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East was right in his interpretation of what the Minister said. Everybody in the House understood what the Minister said, but he rose and put a slightly different gloss on his statement. I thought that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West went a little far in charity when he thanked


the Minister for removing the misunderstanding. I thought that of all the courteous remarks that I have heard recently the hon. Gentleman's remark was a champion. I am not sure how far he meant it to be taken seriously. The Minister has made it clear that we have set up a Freight Corporation and we must therefore give it something to do. What a rotten and miserable argument.
I welcome the Minister's return to the Chamber. I have been discussing the point made by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, which he said was disturbing him. He was referring to the Minister's statement, "You have a great corporation. You must give it something to do". Apart from the Minister and his colleagues on the Front Bench, everybody in the House had no doubt what the Minister meant, and certainly we on this side of the House, to a man, support the view expressed by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West.
6.15 p.m.
I find this mutilation of the Railways Board in this way, simply to suit yet another arrogant Socialist experiment, quite intolerable. I am sure that my hon. Friend will advise the Opposition to divide against the Minister's insistence on this wretched proposal which has made every railwayman on that side of the House, in his heart at least, if not publicly, ashamed of the Government.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: What I found most remarkable in the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) was the reason given by him for the Minister's taking power from a nationalised industry. He said that the reason was ideological. We have frequently been accused of being ideological because we have sought to extend the powers of nationalised industries. The hon. Gentleman's attitude comes as a bit of a surprise, and I hope it means that the Opposition have seen the error of their ways and will help us in future when we seek to extend the powers of a nationalised industry, for example the manufacturing powers of British Railways.
What I found even more remarkable was that when the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) agreed with me and referred to this inconsistency, the hon. Member for Cathcart said, "Hear, hear."

Mr. Manuel: He always does that.

Mr. Atkins: The inconsistencies in the Opposition's argument are quite clear. What I also found remarkable, and even amusing, was the statement that the Government were not investing enough in the railways. Day after day we have been told that the Government are spending too much on the nationalised industries. Where do the Opposition stand on this issue?
Perhaps even more amusing, however, is the Opposition's new rôle of friend of British Railways and railwaymen. This must send a shiver down the backs of railwaymen who, since 1947, have heard the Opposition denigrate and malign British Railways on every possible occasion. The Opposition have suddenly found confidence in British Railways.
No one is a greater friend of British Railways than I am. I am a former employee, and have an almost over-sentimental attachment to the railways. When I was on the railways I realised that if there was a weakness it was in sales promotion, and I think that the Minister put up an arguable case for his proposition. The chief reason for what is happening lies in the origins of British Railways as a monopoly transport authority. They were unduly protected as a monopoly during the nineteenth century, and they had obligations as well, but this position in transport persisted well into the twentieth century, and was in evidence even in the 1940s. If powers in connection with freight transport were not transferred to the new Corporation, it would be necessary to set up a separate sales organisation in British Railways anyway. We need a new structure, and if we are to have one, surely it is right that it should be a structure which integrates all forms of transport? That, I think, is what the Minister is trying to do. He has been much maligned.

Mr. Marsh: It is always the same.

Mr. Atkins: This new-found friendship of the Opposition for the railways is due to the fact that their malice against my right hon. Friend is greater than their malice against British Railways.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not get beyond the Amendment.

Mr. Atkins: I withdraw that remark, Mr. Speaker.
I am not saying that I have no doubts about this change; I had doubts originally, partly because I am a railwayman and it was not easy for me to come to the conclusion that what we are now suggesting was probably the best way. I am not saying that I am without doubt even now, because—like other human beings—I am worried about change and its consequences. But I am not congenitally opposed to change, as is the case with hon. Members opposite. That is part of their trouble.
One safeguard about the new Corporation is the fact that the railways themselves have a large proportion of the holding. I am fairly confident that the new body is the kind of body that we need to increase freight traffic generally. I hope that the anxiety of the Opposition to be the friends of British Rail will be demonstrated in the future at Question Time by their praising the achievements of British Rail instead of their seeking every opportunity to denigrate it. After much consideration I have come to the conclusion that the Government are doing the right thing.

Mr. Peter Bessell: We have heard the most devastating indictment of the Government this afternoon from the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley), who put to the House the best possible argument why the case presented by the Minister should be rejected. It would be wrong for us to go over the arguments which we ventilated at considerable length in Standing Committee on the issue of the freightliner service and the transfer of the control of that service from British Rail. That is the purpose of the Amendment.
I regret that in asking us to reject the conclusions reached in another place the Minister was not able to muster any new argument in support of his case. I do not mean this disrespectfully, but his arguments today did not seem nearly as strong as those put to the Standing Committee by his predecessor, who at least made a cogent case for a coordinated service. Today the Minister admitted that the one argument which appeared to have impressed him was the argument advanced in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Beeching. I find

it difficult to be in agreement with the noble Lord, because in terms of British Railways and my constituency I regard him as a butcher. But in this matter he was right. The Minister admitted that the organisational difficulties referred to by the noble Lord have real substance. It is a pity that this argument did not weigh with the Minister even if the other arguments, such as those advanced by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East, could not be accepted by him.
The Minister said that the freightliner service was a hybrid—partly rail and partly road. He said that it is necessary for the freightliner service to be served by road services. But this is true of every aspect of rail freight transportation. Nobody takes a grand piano by hand, or on a bicycle or in a wheelcart, to the station to have it transported by rail: it has to be conveyed, from the place of manufacture or the place from which it is to be transported, by road, to the station. There is nothing unique about this.
I admit that the freightliner service involves special containers, and that these containers are themselves carried by road in rather different circumstances, but the basic principle is the same. That is no argument for suggesting that because it has a road-rail composition it is right to remove this service to the National Freight Corporation.
The prospect of British Rail losing control of the freightliner service is one which we have been assured by everyone is greeted with dismay by the experts. I am sure that it is greeted with dismay by the railwaymen—certainly those with whom I have discussed it in my constituency, as I did during the proceedings in Standing Committee—who regard it as a retrograde step. It is not right that the railways, which can genuinely boast in this case that they have provided one of the most efficient forms of transport that this country has developed since the war, should be robbed not merely of the control of that service but of the benefit of a large proportion of the profits which will derive from it. How often does a Minister—be he a Labour Minister or a Conservative Minister—have to justify the assistance which has to be given to the railways?
Yet here, at the very time when, through this Bill, we are placing a responsibility on the railways to pay their way; when, through this Bill, we are demanding that the subsidy be reduced; when, through the Bill, the railways will be instructed to make economies which will enable them to produce, if not profit at least, eventually, a situation when they are no longer in the red, we are axeing part of their profits and the best potential they have in the entire network for making money. This is absurd, and it stands upon its head every argument advanced by the Government that the Bill is intended to assist the railways. if it is intended to assist the railways why allow this absurd transfer to take place?
I was flattered when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said that the freightliner service is "the brightest jewel in the crown of British Rail". I used that term. This is one aspect of British Rail in which railwaymen can feel a sense of pride. Railways are criticised. People complain that we are subsidising them too much. People complain about the services. But any railwayman can now say, "Look at the freightliner service. Here is something which cannot even meet the demand that is being made upon it by the public." There are freightliner depots—for instance, the one in Glasgow—where the demand exceeds the capacity, and British Rail has to do everything in its power to build up the service and increase the capacity to meet that demand.
Here is a positive achievement—something to which the railways and railwaymen at every level of employment can point with justified pride. Yet at this moment the Government choose to clobber it. They do not choose to clobber it in respect of a service which is not making a profit, or in respect of unprofitable lines; they choose to take from British Rail the profit and control of a service which can be effectively controlled only by railwaymen themselves. Apart from the utter absence of logic in this decision, the thing that distresses me more than anything else is the fact that when a service which has encountered incredible difficulty—difficulty caused not by its own mismanagement but largely by circumstances beyond its control, namely, the inevitable shift from rail to

road of many forms of transport, passenger and freight alike, as the result of the development of the internal combustion engine and other things—at last comes up with a winner, that winner is subjected to this treatment.
6.30 p.m.
I am certain that, on the grounds of the efficiency and morale of the railwaymen and a better transport service and every other argument, the Government are making a serious error. I hope that, even at this late moment, the Minister, who always approaches these matters objectively and genuinely seeks to serve the interests of the industries under Government control, will admit that the changes suggested in another place and by those of us on this side in Standing Committee, and which must be supported by many hon. Members opposite who have been associated for so long with the railways, should prevail, and that, in this Amendment at least, the House should agree with the Lords.

Mr. Manuel: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but certain things which have been said must be answered—[Laughter.] Does the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) wish to interrupt?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: If the hon. Gentleman is giving me the floor, I would like to ask how long he has taken on the responsibility of answering for the Treasury Bench. They are perfectly capable of answering points made from either side of the House. It is not for the hon. Member, who has shown such bigotry in his treatment of his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) to say that he will answer.

Mr. Manuel: I gave way because I thought that the hon. Gentleman wanted to question something that I had said. When I said that certain things had to be answered, I did not mean to answer for a Minister but only as regards my own knowledge of the railways and my beliefs. An hon. Member said that our policy over the freightliner service would mean a mutilation of the railways. This is linked with what the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) said, that roads had to be used anyway, since the containers are taken into the freightliner


depots. I agree with his example of a piano. I do not carry one in my bag at any time, far less into a railway depot.
But that is only a proportion of rail traffic. The same applies to what my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) said about single wagon loads. Many kinds of goods are affected. For instance, coal does not go by road on to railways: the transport goes right into the pit and under the hoppers. If my hon. Friend was saying that road services would destroy that single wagon load, which is getting results and making way for coupled trains with vacuum braking throughout—

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Bradley rose—

Mr. Manuel: No, my hon. Friend would not give way to we when I asked him to and I will not give way to him.
My hon. Friend also has nervous fears about certain sections of railway workers which he need not have—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Is it not a strong convention of the House that when an hon. Member has criticised another hon. Member he should give that hon. Member a chance to intervene to rectify the position?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his advice to another hon. Member. It is a matter, however, for the hon. Member who has the floor to decide.

Mr. Manuel: I would point out to the hon. Member for Peterborough, who knows so little about the Bill, that the circumstances were the same when I was trying to intervene in my hon. Friend's speech: he was referring to me. Therefore, I am just paying him out in his own coin—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) had better keep out of this.
My hon. Friend was over nervous, because what we are dealing with here is a rapidly expanding arm of British Railways, the freightliner service, which will go on expanding. As to the staff employed having fears of redundancy and seniority difficulties, this is not the case. No one knows more about seniority clauses affecting locomen in this country than I do. I admit that a tar bigger

quota of these clauses deal with staff with whom my hon. Friend is familiar, but he is still over-nervous. Whether there is an expansion of the number of vehicles carried by freightliner trains or of the number which enter depots with containers, this will lead to promotion. Seniority clauses need not be claimed to retain certain postions, and the same applies to pensions.
I ask my hon. Friend to show some faith. Those who talk loosely of this being left to railwaymen—the hon. Member for Bodmin, for instance—should realise that it will be. The same fellows will be doing the job, with the same desire to help railways, and of greater volume of traffic will be going on unused lines. More freightliner depots will be built. This itself is the insurance against my hon. Friend's fears.
After all, something which is to be mutilated is not helped and sustained by being given half the securities. In this set-up, 51 per cent. of the securities will be transferred to the Freightliner Company and 49 per cent. left with the Railways Board. Therefore, the more profitable the freightliner service is, the better it will be for the railways and the greater security will be enjoyed by the employees.
I am certain that these numbers which my hon. Friend is nervous about will find their positions more secure and their wages and conditions better than in the old bad days of Beechingism and the Tory hacking about with British Railways which have now departed forever. We are now striding into an era of greater development for the railways and greater security for its workers.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I do not know how much satisfaction it has given the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) to have the assurances of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), but I would suggest to the latter that he should read the Bill before giving such categorical answers as he has given. For example, would he say that, with the Bill as it stands and under the new authority, if that were transferred, these railwaymen would get the concessionary vouchers for travel which they get now? I think he will find that before he gives this blanket approval affecting these employees he had better read the Bill.
I urge the Minister to treat with great respect and seriousness the point of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East abut morale. There is no doubt that they are worried about the future and that they are left in a very disturbed frame of mind which cannot be good for the railways.
I represent Peterborough, one of the old-established railway centres, and I tell the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire that there is not the same bigotry or antipathy between the locomotive men and the clerks as he suggests. I do not know why in his speech he suggested that the only men who are railwaymen are, in fact, locomotive men. The whole of the service must work together if we are to succeed. I advise him as a friend not to bring that sort of bigotry into debates in the House.
The Minister showed himself to be badly informed on the question. From his answer he seemed to suggest that the feeling so well described by his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East did not, in fact, exist. I add my words to those of his hon. Friend and ask the Minister to pay some attention to this problem. If he intends to use the Whip to defeat the Lords Amendment, he will have the power of the vote to do so, but he would be spending his time wisely if he went to some trouble to deal with the fears expressed by his hon. Friend, who is one of the most experienced railway negotiators in the House, who has played a leading part in railway affairs over many years and who has always shown a sense of responsibility in dealing with matters affecting the unions.
We must have an efficient railway service if we are to meet the transport challenge of the future. It therefore behoves all of us to see that we do not undermine the most important factor making for the success of any business—the morale of those who have to operate it. I advise the Minister to go to some trouble in his reply to give assurances that the chances of promotion of these men, their general status and their freedom of action to enjoy their retirement will not be taken from them by the reorganisation suggested in the Bill. I can well understand him wanting to fob off speeches from this side of the House on the ground that they are partisan or that they are the type

of speech which an Opposition is expected to make. But he cannot level such a charge against his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East. Irrespective of the answer which he gives to my hon. Friends, I hope that he will pay serious attention to the points made by his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East.

Mr. Marsh: The hon. Member has made a point at great length about the disturbance which may be involved. This will be negotiated by the trade unions with the employers. It is not an issue in which the House usually gets itself involved. May I assume that this attitude to disturbance and his objections to it will be the same if the disturbance involved the dislocation of people's lives following the denationalization of nationalised industries?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I am making a point which runs beyond any ideological theories—that if we have industries which must be maintained for the good of the nation, it behoves anybody interfering with the structure of those industries to look to the morale of the people who have to work in them.

Mr. Leadbitter: I shall be brief because the debate has begun to wander far beyond the strict terms of my right hon. Friend's proposal. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not want to be persuaded not to be brief, and if hon. Members desist from interrupting I will make a contribution to the House by being brief.
I was surprised to find that the debate had begun to move away from the issue involved, particularly when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) talked about this jewel of the Freight Corporation and his concern about the way in which the present proposals would affect British Rail. I was surprised that he did not observe that this jewel was created only recently and certainly not during the years of the Tory Administration.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Utter rubbish.

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Member also spent considerable time applauding British Railways, but in Standing Committee we spent many hours asking hon. Members opposite to desist from criticising British Railways. What they said


upstairs is one thing and what they say in the Chamber is another.
We have here a simple issue: is it right and proper that we should have a Freight Corporation charged with the responsibility of marketing and management? That is basically the issue. To truncate the duties of the Freight Corporation, as the Lords Amendment proposes, without having regard to the real purpose of the Corporation would be foolhardy.
The hon. Member for Cathcart tried to call in support of his case a speech made by Lord Popplewell in another place on 24th June, but he omitted to say—a point which I am trying to make clear—that, as reported in column 1144 of the Official Report of the House of Lords, Lord Popplewell—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot quote his Lordship unless his Lordship was a Minister of the Government explaining Government policy.

Mr. Leadbitter: His Lordship in fact indicated that in spite of what he had said—and I do not detract from the point which the hon. Member for Cathcart made—he would not support the Tory Amendment in the Division because he was satisfied that the Tories were not sincere.
That is the situation with the Amendment in this House. The Opposition are concerned not with the Amendment but with the previous debate. They do not want a Freight Corporation. They do not want this set up at all. They talk in terms of lack of efficiency or of cooperation or of co-ordination, but they omit to spell out Clause 1(2)(d) on page 2 of the Bill which makes it clear that the Corporation and the Railways Board are empowered to co-operate. It reads:
for the purposes of such co-operation, the Corporation
—that is, the Freight Corporation—
and the Board
—that is, the Railways Board—
shall have power to enter into such arrangements with one another with respect to the exercise and performance of their respective functions on such terms as may appear to them to be expedient.

Discounting the unnecessary and vicious comment made by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) who, having made his comment, departed from the House, it seems to me that any worries of the Opposition in this respect should have been dissipated long ago, because the conditions in the Bill for co-operation are quite clear and well understood.
It is absurd for hon. Members opposite to rely upon the evidence of Lord Beeching when they refer to the division between selling and production. That was a red herring. Many of us respect the opinion of Lord Beeching, but many of us also accept that, like most human beings, he is a fallible creature and can make errors of judgment like anybody else.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Whether Lord Beeching is or is not right, may I ask the hon. Member to name any prominent railwayman, past or present, who supports the Government's proposals?

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Leadbitter: It is not for me to re-structure my speech because the hon. Member produces a questionnaire.
I emphasise that a point made far too often in the House about the morale in the industry has not been substantiated. There are many hon. Members in industrial areas who have not had from railway people, whether in authority or on the workshop floor, the kind of indication of lack of morale which hon. Members opposite have claimed. It is arguable whether in the end it would be better to have British Railways' freight services run in the manner suggested by hon. Members opposite or whether they should be run in the manner suggested by the Government, but even where there is an element of doubt about which is the best way to do it, it is irrefutably clear that management and marketing ought to be together.

Mr. Bessell: Does not the hon. Member agree that all the evidence of the success of the Freightliner Service under the control of British Rail indicates that they have succeeded in marketing and, therefore, that the marketing issue does not arise?

Mr. Leadbitter: I hope that in argument, to strengthen any point which I


make, or any point which any other hon. Member seeks to make, it will not be suggested that the kind of progress mentioned by the hon. Member has not taken place. It is because it has taken place, and because this is shown clearly to be a winner in the transportation of freight, that we see more clearly still the need in such an expanding part of our transport system for the Corporation to have management and marketing in one organisation. If those of us who hold that view are said to be wrong, we should like to hear specific arguments showing that we are wrong, but we have heard none. All that we have heard called in evidence is a quotation or two from Lord Beeching and another gentleman and quotations from an article in The Times. That newspaper is not well known for its accuracy on a large number of subjects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East raised an issue on which there is unity on both sides of the House—the future of people who work in British Railways and who will be affected by the Bill when it becomes an Act. I urge the Minister to ensure that the many men who have spent their lifetime in British Railways and the many young men who have hopes of a future in a progressive industry will, on transfer, not suffer any loss of advantages in terms of pension rights or any other rights.
I hope that the discussions taking place between the Ministry and the representatives of the unions concerned will have, in particular, one goal in mind—that these men shall not suffer loss. I say that in order that outside the House the men may take heart that a long-standing principle in the House will not be diminished in any way—the principle that whenever transfers of this kind take place, the welfare of the men is considered with great care. I hope that hon. Members, be they for or against nationalisation, will not exaggerate the position but will do everything in their power to add to the constructive contribution which the country requires from Parliament to enable our transport services, particularly on the freight side, to be efficient.

Mr. Gower: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) was reproached for speaking in too emotional and extravagant terms. Even the hon. Member for

Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley) was said by the Minister to have exaggerated some aspects of the matter. The hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Ronald Atkins) expressed surprise that my hon. Friends were so concerned about the future welfare of British Rail. There is nothing surprising about this, particularly since the recent action of Ministers has been singularly cruel to the railways. On no occasion did a Conservative Minister act so cruelly towards British Rail as recent Socialist Ministers.

Mr. Leadbitter: What about Beeching?

Mr. Gower: As my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said, the Government are taking away the plum from British Rail.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Would my hon. Friend consider the annual loss that will be occasioned as a result of the removal of this part of British Rail's activities?

Mr. Gower: I do not want to be drawn into other aspects of British Rail's activities. I am concerned with one of its biggest activities.
In every country rail traffic began to decline after the war. Whatever was done, it seemed inevitable that the industry would contract. There seemed no hope. Gradually hope appeared and something new and dynamic was built up. The part of British Rail's activities which we are considering represents the dynamic part of the railways and it was that part which gave hope to those who were and are engaged in the industry, not just those at administrative and management level but the rank and file. Now the Government are determined to snatch away this one part of the industry which has obvious signs of continued dynamic growth. This is why hon. Members on both sides of the House, their Lordships and all concerned with the industry feel so strongly about this part of the Bill.
The Minister and others have suggested that the sales side of British Rail is weak. My experience has been that it is not weak and that it has been considerably strengthened in recent years. Some splendid and highly qualified people have been recruited by British Rail on the sales side in recent years and, to use a hackneyed phrase, a "better type" now


runs this service. University graduates with good qualifications are among the young, energetic men who in many areas are running the sales side of the railways. I have encountered many of them in the western area of British Rail and can vouch for their ability. They would have done equally well in sales promotion outside the railways.
They were persuaded to join British Rail because of the new hope which the traffic which we are considering gave to the railways. If we now take it away, 51 per cent. of the profits from this traffic will be lost and the control of it will pass to a new body. The importance of British Rail will be depreciated once again and the sort of recruitment about which I have been speaking and which is still badly needed will be lost. This is an extraordinarily serious state of affairs and I hope that the Government will, even now, have second thoughts about the matter.
7.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East made the valid point that British Rail is capable of selling this part of its service. It has been suggested that it sells itself. In any event, British Rail has shown no weakness in exploiting this valuable part of its activity. Any growth that now takes place in this traffic will result in only half its profitability going to the railways. The road side of its activities will bring in a reward of 100 per cent. and there is obviously the danger that the railways will concentrate on exploiting that side of its activities.
This is the most cruel thing that any Ministry has done to British Rail in recent years. I am not surprised that so many people are revolting against it.

Mr. John Hynd: I would not have intervened but for some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and other hon. Members. I have been slightly nauseated by the constant references to the cruel act which the Government are perpetrating against the railways by removing a profitable service and thereby making matters difficult for the railways. The hon. Member for Barry described this as the cruellest thing that any Government had done to the railways in recent years. He did not say how recent.
I recall an organisation known as the British Transport Commission, which was created at a time when the railways were in a most difficult period. Under this co-ordinated National Transport Authority, the railways became part of an integrated transport service, made a profit for the first time in years, and continued to do so until 1951, when the most profitable part of it—the road haulage part—was not just brought into this sort of part co-ordination, with joint management, but was completely broken away by the then Tory Government. That was about the limit in cruelty to the railways, and it had little regard for the future of railwaymen and the efficiency of the nation's transport services.
Much has been said about the overwhelming body of expert opinion which has said that it would have been a better arrangement had the freightliner services been left with the Railways Board, since this service was created by the railways, is being run effectively by them and are selling themselves.
I do not agree with some of the criticisms that have been made about the railways' advertising and salesmanship in recent years. I have had long experience of the railways and I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that from the time when road transport began to be a serious menace to the railways in 1918 an energetic salesmanship drive has been in operation. British Rail's services have been built up so that today the liner services and other facilities almost sell themselves. Nevertheless, salesmanship is still required and it is effectively undertaken by the railways.
The expert opinion which has been quoted includes people like Lord Popple-well who, like myself, emanates from the N.U.R. Many hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends who speak for other parts of the industry, including the clerical union, have spoken strongly in favour of the railways retaining the service with which we are concerned. We represent bodies of opinion which for many years have had close knowledge and experience of railway working, and who are, therefore, highly qualified to express an opinion on these matters and I trust that their views will be taken into account by the Government.
The railway unions are so concerned with this issue because, with their vast experience, they are convinced that it would be better for the railways and the set-up of the new integrated transport system if the Bill did not propose this course and if the freight services were retained by the railways. They think they are right—although of course they may be wrong, but it is worth remembering that this great body of expert opinion also holds views about the Bill in general. These great unions are unitedly in support of the Bill and have welcomed it.
Hon. Members who have been fluent in their praise of railway union comment on this issue should realise that, whatever views have been expressed about certain parts of the Bill—the N.U.R. also has reservations about other parts of the Bill which are not so particularly controversial; details which the union would have preferred to be dealt with in the Bill somewhat differently—these experts are, above all, concerned to prevent the Bill from being destroyed. It is because they and we know the purpose behind some of the Amendments and speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite that we are aware of their intention, which is the destruction of the Bill and of the concept behind it. That is why, despite our reservations, we intend to see the Bill become law.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I will not comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd), who went into the history of the railways. If I did, I might be tempted to repeat all the speeches that I have made on this subject in the House since 1950.
The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) said that my hon. Friends did not like the idea of the National Freight Corporation and wanted to do away with it. That is true. However, the Minister said that one could not have the Corporation unless the Corporation had control of the liner services. That was a boomerang of an argument because on the one hand the Minister believes that the Corporation cannot work without controlling the liner trains while, on the other, almost everybody with knowledge of the industry agrees that the liner services should continue to he under the control of British Rail.
We have heard very little this evening in favour of these proposals, even from the other side. We have heard many references to Lord Beeching who seems to be elevated into a sort of bogy man. Anyone who looks at the Beeching Report will find that Lord Beeching never proposed to scrap any railways at all. He was asked to produce a pattern of transport to meet modern needs, and at least three times in his Report he said that if uneconomical lines were required by the Government of the day the Government must pay for them—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must keep to the Amendment.

Mr. Wilson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but references have been made in this debate to Lord Beeching, and particularly with regard to his criticism of this proposal. I would, however, remind hon. Members opposite who have been speaking about Lord Beeching that he was not alone in his criticism of this proposal. Lord Robertson of Oakridge agreed with him on this point, and so did Sir Stanley Raymond. No hon. Member opposite will accuse Sir Stanley Raymond of being a politician hostile to the principles of nationalisation. He was a railway man of great distinction whose politics were not in that direction at all. Most people who have had experience of the matter are very critical of the organisation proposed under this Clause.
Mention has been made of the railway clerks, the engine men and the station staffs, but no one has mentioned the middle management—the railway officers. I am thinking of the people who used to be in a separate organisation from the other unions, but they have now combined. It is the higher ranks of middle management who are very important to the management of the railways. We can have a perfectly good station staff and a perfectly good general manager, but if the seconds-in-command are despondent the thing will not work.
Those are the people with whom I had to deal so much for 20 years. I was mixed up with them very much, because I served for 20 years with British Railways—19 years under private enterprise and one year under nationalisation. What one noticed particularly on nationalisation was the despondency of the middle management. It was not a political despondency: they were afraid of the


future of the railways, and that fear continued for a very long time after nationalisation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) referred briefly to the fact that during the Summer Recess he and I, at the invitation of British Rail, toured some of the modernisation activities. We went to the research station at Derby, and we saw the new station at Euston. In particular, we saw the liner train services, the terminals, and the loading of liner train containers at the container ports. We were very much impressed with the efficiency of what was going on; and with the great hopes for the future that these activities displayed. But what impressed me most was the great improvement in the morale of the middle management. They were all on top of the world and believed greatly in the future of this activity.
It is all very well to say that these are the same people who will be managing things when taken over by the National Freight Corporation, but I cannot help but think that the change-over will cause a lowering of morale in those left with the railways. It is suggested that the liner service part of the Corporation's activities will be done by those transferred from the railways, but what about the men who are not so transferred? There will be a lack of morale among them. This is a most unfortunate proposal, and it ought not to have been made. I do not think that it will do the railways any good, and I am doubtful whether it will work.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Marsh: By leave of the House, may I say that I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) touched on a very interesting point. Judging by virtually all the speeches from hon. Members opposite this evening, and assuming, as one always does, that they were totally genuine and spontaneous, one would expect to find that hon. Members opposite had changed their minds on a number of factors in the Bill and one would be interested to hear their views on quantity licensing. If ever an issue has been overstated, it has been this present controversial matter. If hon. Members opposite have changed their

minds on quantity licensing, I am pleased to hear it, because it is something that British Rail regard as essential—

Mr. Webster: On Report, the Minister had to spend a lot of time correcting the misapprehension of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) who said:
…I know this is true of the major railwaymen's union—railwaymen are not in favour of dividing the freightliner service from the railway service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 1359.]
It seems as though someone else has also changed his view.

Mr. Marsh: Better the one than the nine and ninety.
As I say, this issue has been overstated. If the great fear is of the effect on the morale of the industry, some of this evening's speeches have not helped. I do not think that this change faces the men with the sort of serious situation that has been suggested, based on the assumption that, as someone said, we could look to the possibility of the National Freight Corporation allowing the freightliners to run down because the Corporation would not be getting a full share of the profits. That is absolute nonsense.
A lot of hon. Members have spoken as though the relationship between the Corporation and British Rail will be that of two hostile, warring factions. Here we have a situation in which British Rail will hold a 49 per cent. interest in the Corporation and will have its members on the board of the Corporation. Both organisations will use each other's facilities, and each will be totally dependent on the other.

Mr. Bradley: That is exactly the situation at the moment between British Road Services and British Rail. There is intense, unfair and insane competition between two public bodies. We do not want this carried over to the new organisation.

Mr. Marsh: With great respect, my hon. Friend has missed the point of the whole exercise. There cannot be war between the two bodies because the whole purpose of the National Freight Corporation is to co-ordinate freight movement. The two are not in competition: both are participating in the same job.

Mr. Bessell: As was said in the previous debate: is it not true that, once again, the final arbiter is the Freight Corporation and not British Rail?

Mr. Marsh: Here we have a body which depends for its very existence upon facilities which are controlled by British Rail. British Rail has a 49 per cent. holding in that body, which also has British Rail members on its board. It is perfectly legitimate for hon. Members opposite to put up a case against the coordination of freight movement, but if one is arguing for that co-ordination it seems to me to be extraordinary to view this as concerning two different warring factions—

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Referring to this argument about the 51 per cent. holding, if no competition arises because of such a holding, and British Rail has members on the board, and so on, why was it necessary to buy the B.E.T. buses, which were in exactly the same position? Was there not thought to be some competition there? If there was not, why was £35 million paid out to that company?

Mr. Marsh: This is an entirely different situation. There is no similarity between these two sets of circumstances. If hon. Gentlemen will bear with me, I want to develop the reasons why I think that this is not only desirable but inevitable once we move towards the idea of an integrated freight system. We heard many contributions which varied in their purple prose, one of which went to the length of describing this as depriving British Railways of the brightest jewel in its crown. An hon. Gentleman laid claim to that phrase, but I think that probably it had been around for quite a bit before that. None the less, on this occasion the phrase was used with great feeling and great emotion.
The picture we had was that of this vast industry having its very existence threatened by the removal of freightliners. Apart from one passing reference to sundries by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), there was not one reference to this subject. If sundries, which are currently losing on their own about £25 million a year, are taken away from British Railways, the exercise on the whole is a not unattractive one for British Railways in cash when the emotion has been put on

one side. It was right to take sundries away from British Railways and transfer them to the Corporation, not purely as a method of relieving British Railways of a £25 million loss-maker, though this would have been attractive to British Railways, but because it was all part of the total concept of a National Freight Corporation handling sundries and handling freightliners as well.
Hon. Gentlemen have almost gone so far as to suggest that there is nothing left for British Railways to do. This is the extent to which hon. Gentlemen have totally overstated the case all along. Two hundred million tons out of 214 million tons of freight a year is in full wagons and full trainloads. There is this vast investment and this very sophisticated exercise, in addition to fast inter-city passenger services which British Rail are doing superbly well. There are all the problems of taking this industry, as the Board is doing, and giving it the stability and financial viability which it has lacked for so many years.
Therefore, taking the whole question, the balance of advantage lies with British Railways on this transfer. If hon. Members think that it does not, there are one or two other parts of the Bill on which they can lend their support to giving British Railways some more assistance.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) put his finger very firmly on the concept. In taking up one of my remarks, he said that it is perfectly common for someone who wants to move a piano a long distance to take it by one form of transport to the station, then to transport it by rail, and then to put it on a third form of transport and deliver it at the other end. Of course that is common. That is understood. It is precisely this that we are trying to avoid. We are trying to produce a situation where we can have a guaranteed policy for the total through movement of goods; and that cannot be achieved without an overall investment policy. There cannot be an overall investment policy unless the various arms of the total movement are under one central control.
I can well understand the feeling of many railwaymen, because this is an industry which develops a loyalty and an attraction for the industry which very few other industries develop. If I were to get on to this bandwagon, I could tell the


hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) that I was born in Swindon and brought up in a Great Western Railway house and am virtually an honorary member of the firm.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: My right hon. Friend has said that he appreciates the great anxieties that railway staffs have at a major change of this kind. Would he accept, as the Minister who, as well as this House, is responsible for these major changes, that we should be equally keen to assure the staff concerned that they will in no way suffer? Will he as Minister go so far as to confirm, not only that they will not suffer, but that they ought to gain in the long term?

Mr. Marsh: I am not quite sure about gaining what specifically. I am in no doubt that railwaymen under this arrangement, and railwaymen in general, have a very bright future. I have said this recently. I think that the industry, technically, commercially and financially, has now reached a take-off point where every aspect of its activities is becoming highly successful and the future for the industry is very good. If my hon. Friend had in mind what I think he may well have had in mind, I do not think that the intervention of Ministers in trade union negotiations is welcome by either employers or unions. This is a fairly commonly held view.
In conclusion, this is based on a different concept, one of the total movement. It is based on the assumption that it is important that the very expensive investment decisions which have to be made should be made by the Corporation. The future which this offers, both for the industry and for railwaymen generally, is a very bright one indeed. Given the safeguards, given the fact that these two bodies are inextricably linked, given the fact that, as well as removing from the railways what was described as the brightest jewel in their crown, we have taken the precaution at the same time of removing from them what was just about the most expensive part of their activities, all in all I ask the House to support the Amendment.

Mr. Webster: I delayed rising so that the Government benches could cheer the

Minister's speech, but they did not. We have had the usual technique at which the Minister is adept. He begins every speech with sweet reason, so that one hopes that he will relent in response to the good sense expressed by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Bradley). However, it is not long before we realise that behind the sweetly reasonable approach there is a completely inflexible will on this subject.
It is tragic. I am not ashamed to say that it is a shame and a bad thing to take away one of the things that is generally the best morale improver that could have happened to British Railways. For years the deficit got greater. It got worse. The position became hopeless. People who had not only themselves spent a lifetime in the service but whose parents and grandparents had been in the service were thoroughly demoralised. There is nothing hypocritical about my saying that I think it is wrong-headed to take potentially the most profitable part of the railway system completely away from the railways. I know that it is emotional; I accept that; but there are many people who have been working in British Railways for years and who needed an uplift, but it has now been removed.
We have had the active connivance of railwaymen in the House. We have listened to a cogent, courageous and clear speech by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East. I had hoped that as a result of that the Minister would have thought again. There is still time for him to think again. It is interesting that Lord Popplewell, who I would have thought would have probably been behind the Government, has come out independently against this proposal and disapproves of the change. No doubt Lord Popplewell had the advantage, as I did, of listening to the excellent speeches which Lord Robertson of Oakridge and Lord Beeching made, not from any party bench, but from the crossbench in the House of Lords.
We on this side are always accused of being opposed to the railways. The previous Minister always accused us of that. Therefore, if we who are alleged to be always opposed to the railways are asking that this service should stay with the railways, that puts it at its lowest common denominator.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East was on a thoroughly valid point when he spoke about the dislocation of the railways. Not nearly enough thought has gone into this. Normally I would not interfere in a thing like this, but the personnel problems must be colossal. Those who are trying to make a good job of man-management, one of the biggest difficulties in the whole railway undertaking, will have a terrible problem on their plate and a problem which will raise a great deal of ill will as well.
7.30 p.m.
The question of concessionary travel has been raised. I am not sure that the Minister has given an undertaking about it, and I should like to hear from him if he is willing to give an undertaking now.

Mr. Marsh: The hon. Gentleman puts the specific question to me. He must be aware that these are matters which are negotiated between the unions and their employers. Those negotiations are taking place. I give him my assurance that Ministerial intervention in the negotiations, or, indeed, in most other trade union negotiations, would be bitterly resented by both unions and employers.

Mr. Webster: Now one knows the position on that subject, at least. Obviously, it is something which worries railway men in this House. I do not differentiate between a railway clerk and a railway man in this respect. They are all railway men to me.
Apart from the emotional side of the matter, which, as is natural to it, the House has taken to its heart today, there is the whole question of the management structure. Both Lord Robertson of Oak-ridge and Lord Beeching talked of the great mistake of taking sales away from operation. In a nationalised industry and a communications industry, and something which is very nearly a monopoly, this is a dangerous step to take. It creates ill will from the customer, which is bad

again for the railways, and it is bad all round. One cannot but remember that Lord Beeching was the developer of the freightliner service. Whatever has been said in hard words about him tonight, he probably has more imagination on the subject and has studied it in greater wealth of detail than anyone alive. That is not an unfair suggestion. It is tragic and wrong-headed to take the whole thing away and that Lord Beeching's advice and the advice of those who have run this great organisation should be totally disregarded.

The hon. Member for Leicester, North-East made other points which drove home the validity of what we are trying to do. If the freightliner system is taken from the railways and put under the National Freight Corporation, an organisation only 50 per cent. controlled by the railways, there will not be the same incentive to send by rail. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is a road-based organisation by tradition, and the whole of that tradition will lean towards sending by road. There will not be the same incentive to send by rail. The Minister's action completely defeats the arguments of the previous Minister, who said that the greater part of the Bill was to relieve traffic congestion by sending goods by rail.

It is wrong for the men. It is wrong in terms of man-management. It is wrong in terms of the management structure. It is thoroughly wrong-headed to throw away the experience and advice of people who have run this industry and have presided over the inception of what is the most advanced and progressive service in the whole British Railways system. For this reason, we shall resist the attempt to take out the Lords Amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 206.

Division No. 292.]
AYES
[7.34 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boardman, H. (Leigh)


Albu, Austen
Barnes, Michael
Booth, Albert


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Baxter, William
Boston, Terence


Alldritt, Walter
Beaney, Alan
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur


Anderson, Donald
Bence, Cyril
Boyden, James


Archer, Peter
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Armstrong, Ernest
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Bradley, Tom


Ashley, Jack
Bidwell, Sydney
Bray, Dr. Jeremy


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Bishop, E. S.
Brooks, Edwin


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Blackburn, F.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.




Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Bob(N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Buchan, Norman
Howie, W.
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hoy, James
Padley, Walter


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Paget, R. T.


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parmell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam
Park, Trevor


Coe, Denis
Hynd, John
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jeger, George (Goole)
Pentland, Norman


Craddock, George (Bradford, S)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Judd, Frank
Rankin, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Rees, Merlyn


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kenyon, Clifford
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, George
Robinson, Rt.Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Leadbitter, Ted
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dell, Edmund
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dempsey, James

Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Ryan, John


Dickens, James
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dobson, Ray
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Sheldon, Robert


Doig, Peter
Lipton, Marcus
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lomas, Kenneth
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ellis, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Julius


Ennals, David
McCann, John
Slater, Joseph


Ensor, David
MacColl, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
MacDermot, Niall
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Vardley)
Macdonald, A. H.
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Faulds, Andrew
McGuire, Michael
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fernyhough, E.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Swain, Thomas


Finch, Harold
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Swingler, Stephen


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackie, John
Symonds, J. B.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackintosh, John P.
Taverne, Dick


Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thornton, Ernest


Fowler, Gerry
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tinn, James,


Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Tomney, Frank


Freeson, Reginald
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Gardner, Tony
Mailalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Garrett, W. E.
Manuel, Archie
Watkins, David (Consett)


Cinsburg, David
Mapp, Charles
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Gourlay, Harry
Marks, Kenneth
Weitzman, David


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marquand, David
Wellbeloved, James


Gregory, Arnold
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Whitaker, Ben


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mayhew, Christopher
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hamling, William
Moonman, Eric
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Harper, Joseph
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Winnick, David


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hattersley, Roy
Moyle, Roland
Woof, Robert


Hazell, Bert
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wyatt, Woodrow


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Neal, Harold
Yates, Victor


Heffer, Eric S.
Newens, Stan



Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Oakes, Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hilton, W. S.
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. Charles Grey and


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Oram, Albert E.
Mr. Neil McBride.


Hooley, Frank
Orbach, Maurice





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Awdry, Daniel
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Bell, Ronald


Astor, John
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Berry, Hn. Anthony


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Balniel, Lord
Bessell, Peter







Biffen, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hastings, Stephen
Percival, Ian


Black, Sir Cyril
Hawkins, Paul
Peyton, John


Blaker, Peter
Hay, John
Pink, R. Bonner


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pounder, Rafton


Bossom, Sir Clive
Heseltine, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Higgins, Terence L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hill, J. E. B.
Prior, J. M. L.


Braine, Bernard
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hordern, Peter
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col, Sir Walter
Hornby, Richard
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bryan, Paul
Hunt, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bullus, Sir Eric
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridsdale, Julian


Burden, F, A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Carlisle, Mark
Jopling, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cary, Sir Robert
Kerby, Capt, Henry
Russell, Sir Ronald


Channon, H. P. G.
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott, Nicholas


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kimball, Marcus
Sharples, Richard


Clegg, Walter

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cooke, Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Silvester, Frederick


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sinclair, Sir George


Cardie, John
Lambton, Viscount
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Corfield, F. V.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Costain, A. P.
Lane, David
Speed, Keith


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Crowder, F. P.
Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'n C'dfield)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Tapsell, Peter


Dance, James
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Loveys, W. H.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lubbock, Eric
Teeling, Sir William


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Temple, John M.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
MacArthur, Ian
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Doughty, Charles
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Tilney, John


Eden, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)
Maddan, Martin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maginnis, John E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Errington, Sir Eric
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Waddington, David


Eyre, Reginald
Marten, Neil
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Farr, John
Maude, Angus
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Fisher, Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fortescue, Tim
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wall, Patrick


Foster, Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walters, Dennis


Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (S'fford &amp; Stone)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ward, Dame Irene


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Webster, David


Giles, Rear Adm. Morgan
Miscampbell, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Monro, Hector
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Glyn, Sir Richard
More, Jasper
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Goodhart, Philip
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Goodhew, Victor
Murton, Oscar
Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick


Gower, Raymond
Neave, Airey
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Grant, Anthony
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Woodnutt, Mark


Grant-Ferris, R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wright, Esmond


Grieve, Percy
Nott, John
Wylie, N. R.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Onslow, Cranley
Younger, Hn. George


Gurdon, Harold
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Anthony Royle and


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Subsequent Lords Amendments disagreed to.

Clause 9

PASSENGER TRANSPORT AREAS, AUTHORITIES AND EXECUTIVES

7.45 p.m.

Lords Amendment No. 29: In page 12, line 32, after "If" insert:
after local government has been reorganised in the light of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government".

Read a Second time.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
We are now passing to the subject of passenger transport authorities, and are once again confronted with a proposition to postpone their establishment until
after local government has been reorganised in the light of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government.


I fully understand why those who are opposed root and branch to the concept of the passenger transport authorities or their establishment would agree with the proposition, in so far as it would postpone the setting up of any P.T.A.s for a considerable period. I am also aware that there are others who are not necessarily opposed to the establishment of an organisation like the P.T.A. but who sincerely think—and this point of view was expressed in another place—that it should await a reorganisation of local government that produces some new form of authority on the lines of the Greater London Council, which, as we said in our White Paper, Public Transport and Traffic, Cmnd. 3481, would be desirable if it covered an area that made sense in transport terms. But, as we also said in the White Paper, we regarded, and still regard, the situation in the great urban areas as so grave and urgent to be dealt with that we could not possibly wait several years, which is what would be involved here, before tackling it by the establishment of some form of integrated passenger transport authority.
We said in the White Paper:
It is therefore proposed as soon as the Bill becomes law to proceed with the establishment of PTAs in Greater Manchester, Merseyside, the West Midlands and Tyneside.
There we named the four great conurbations outside the London area where we regarded the traffic congestion situation—all the difficulties and obstacles confronting effective public transport operations, and all those things connected with integrating responsibilities of highway planning with public transport operations—as being all so urgent that we could not afford to wait until there was an agreed radical reorganisation of local government.

Mr. Bessell: The hon. Gentleman said that it might be a period of several years before this could take place if we awaited the Report of the Royal Commission. I do not follow this. Is there likely to be such a long delay? On what does the hon. Gentleman base that assumption?

Mr. Swingler: Of course, I cannot accurately forecast, but the hon. Gentleman will have noted that the Amendment does not refer to the making of any report but says

after local government has been reorganised in the light of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government".
The Royal Commission has not yet finished its work and has not yet issued a report. That may be in some months' time but all hon. Members will appreciate that, in a way, that is only the beginning of a process. Thereafter there will have to be very considerable negotiations and arguments about the recommendations or the proposals which may arise—I know not—from the Royal Commission, to see what measure of agreement can be achieved about the character of any reorganisation of local government. We know from past experience that that is a process which must last over a considerable period of time.
I am not saying that swift results may not be achieved in a particular area of the country, but we all know in general that when recommendations are made affecting the whole distribution of powers of local government and the character of the organisations to be established there can be a prolonged period of negotiation, and, of course, debate in Parliament. Therefore, we cannot possibly foresee actual reorganisation in the light of the report of the Royal Commission as something likely to happen within months. It will be after a period of years.

Sir Robert Cary: Would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it would have been useful to the House of Commons if, when considering this Bill, we had been in possession of the recommendations of the Royal Commission?

Mr. Swingler: Of course I would acknowledge that straight away. We would have been only too happy if we had been in the position where we had the recommendations, where there had been discussions with the major local authorities, and so on. The fact is that that is not the situation with which we were confronted. At the same time as we had to devise a transport policy to try to meet the really urgent problems of traffic congestion, we lacked a proper framework for planning public transport, for planning the urban roads programme and the application of modern techniques of traffic management. We had not got a consensus of opinion, or specific recommendation about local government to meet the situation.
That is the position with which we are still faced and that is the reason why I commend to the House that we disagree with the Lords in this Amendment, because acceptance of the Amendment would postpone for a time, which I cannot define, but, undoubtedly, a substantial period of time, the setting up of any passenger transport authorities. Therefore, in our view, it would postpone setting up organisations to deal with the rôle of public transport in those areas where the situation is really urgent.
I recognise from what has been said that one of the reasons behind this Amendment and this proposition is that accountability, as it was expressed in another place, is not properly expressed in the organisational structure which we have at the moment in the Bill. Some time was spent by their Lordships discussing, for example, the Minister's powers in relation to P.T.A.s and criticising the fact that the Minister has representation on the passenger transport authority, has control over capital expenditure and expenditure in relation to investment grants, and has the rôle as arbiter between the P.T.A. and the P.T.E. and the Railways Board, and has power to direct the form of accounts; all of this is represented as too much of Whitehall control over the establishment of the passenger transport authorities.
We have always regarded this proposition as a proposition for a partnership between the local authorities and the State in the establishment of passenger transport authorities. The Minister is to have only a minority representation in regard to appointments. The overwhelming majority of appointments are to be made by nomination by the local authorities without any reference to the Minister at all. Of course, because many of the areas include a multiplicity, sometimes a great multiplicity—look at the Manchester area—of local authorities—

Sir R. Cary: 60.

Mr. Swingler: Yes, 60 as the hon. Member says, or more—we think it is right that there should be some liaison between the local authorities and the Minister in the appointment of the chairmen of the boards.
It is obviously also right that in respect of capital grants which are made, or major capital expenditure, the Minister

of Transport must have an important rôle, as, indeed, he fulfils these functions in respect of the highways and roads programme. Again and again we have made plain that this organisation is to be grafted on to the machinery of local government, that it is because the local authorities have highway powers and traffic regulation powers that we wish to give them the responsibility for public transport operations, and that it is only because we have not got reorganised local government machinery that we must devise this kind of structure in which we think it is fair that there should be some representation of the Minister of Transport and that the Minister must exercise a rôle in regard to major projects where there are going to be contributions from national funds.
To sum up on this question, we have made it plain again and again—and, of course, the proof lies in the White Paper my right hon. Friend issued in respect of London in July of this year where we had a piece of reorganised piece of local government machinery—that when there is reform of local government machinery with possibly a single authority covering an area which makes sense in transport terms, clearly we may have to reconsider many of these issues—when that day comes, but it may be that that is several years hence. I cannot tell. It may be something which is very difficult to achieve, and only after protracted negotiations. We know from the facts about traffic congestion and public transport operation, and, from what we are told by people in the conurbations, that we cannot wait till that day to set up an authority which begins to devise and integrate a public transport plan and to pull together the various responsibilities. It is for that basic reason that I trust the House will make plain that it cannot agree to this Amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: In listening to the case advanced by the Minister of State for proceeding straight away with the establishment of the Passenger Transport Authorities, I could not help remembering all I had heard when we were discussing earlier this afternoon the National Freight Corporation. The one great similarity between the National Freight Corporation and the Passenger


Transport Authorities is that the Government are not capable of producing one single outside expert to argue in favour of either organisation.
We know all about congestion in big cities; we are told about the difficulties which it creates by the people who live there. Why is it, if this pressure exists in big cities, and if the solutions are so obvious to those who come down from London to examine the situation, they are not able to persuade the people in big cities that the Passenger Transport Authority as designed by the Ministry of Transport is the way to cure the problem? The Minister of State knows as well as I do that every time anyone goes from the Ministry to any of the four conurbations which will first receive Passenger Transport Authorities the one thing on which they are all united is that the Passenger Transport Authority as embodied in this legislation will not advance the cure of congestion. I cannot understand how the Minister can call in aid arguments about the views of local people when he knows as well as I do that they are diametrically opposed to his proposals. Their Lordships are the last group of people to have examined these proposals and rejected them. They do not believe that they will solve the problems that exist.
I agree with the Minister of State that traffic congestion is one of our major problems. We are in favour of some sort of organisation being set up to bring about an earlier day when the planning that is necessary for these great cities can he brought to fruition, when the investigations and plans can be got under way, but we do not believe that that day will be brought one hour closer by tinkering around with the ownership of the buses, by setting up a great bureaucratic organisation whose principal powers will be to deal with the minutiae of the running of the buses, to decide where the buses shall stop, who runs which bus, which garage they return to at night, the various wage rates paid to the people who run them, the timetables and such problems. These are not the cause of congestion. The centralisation of the decisions around these problems will not remove congestion.
As I shall seek to argue later in my speech, the Ministry have taken the first

stage of what needs to be done, made that the main focus of their activities and ignored the real priorities which we have argued consistently throughout Committee and Report stages of this legislation, and which their Lordships have argued with great determination and have seen fit to embody in this Amendment.
The Minister of State sought to show that the power built into the Passenger Transport Authorities, to be handed over to the executive in many respects, and the constitution of the Authorities themselves, will produce a partnership between the central Government and the local authorities. Yet everybody is aware that what needs to be done in this country is not to set up a partnership between central Government and local government; it is to give to the local people a streamlined organisation which has the power to cope with the problems, about which there will be little dispute in this House or anywhere else where these problems are discussed. It is not a partnership that is being set up in any sense of that word. A partnership is the voluntary coming together of two or more groups of people for a common purpose. This legislation does not produce the voluntary coming together of local authorities and central Government.
This is legislation which has been steam-rollered through this House, which doubtless will he pushed through on the Whips tonight and which has been attacked by everybody—"everybody" is the operative word—who has looked at it and who has a voice which should be heard on the subject. For the Minister of State after these long months to refer to this as a partnership is the height of effrontery at the end of a long exercise of effrontery during the passage of this legislation.
To dismiss some aspects of the legislation to which we have drawn the attention of the House, and of others who have examined it, as though they are of no account or as though they are of some safeguard and benefit to the local people is a curious way of twisting the views which have been expressed outside the House.
For example, the Minister of State referred to the number of Ministerial nominees to be appointed locally to represent the Minister of Transport in this


partnership with the local authorities that is to take place. I would accept at once that the number of nominees in the totality of the organisation does not bear an overwhelmingly large proportion of the power and responsibility. There is to be only one out of every seven members of the Passenger Transport Authority who will be nominated by the Minister, and it may be wondered, therefore, why this principle has been fought for so bitterly and with such persistence. The moment one examines the problems which will be considered by those people, and considers the balance of power which exists in any form of Government, local government being no exception, one begins to realise that that one-seventh, operating as they might well do on directives of the Ministry of Transport, will in virtually every conceivable circumstance have a balance of power. Whatever arguments or discussions are taking place in an organisation consisting, say, of 21 people, that one-seventh, three people, on any likely contingency will be immensely influential and powerful men.
To take the obvious example of the political balance of power, let us look at the standard build-up of an authority of 21 people, only 18 of whom come from locally elected organisations. Let us assume that 10 of those people represent in direct proportion Conservative authorities and that 8 represent Labour authorities. In the straightest possible examination of those facts it is obvious that the local people have decided that they want to be represented by a Conservative authority, because 10, in any democracy of which I am aware, is better than 8. But in the Passenger Transport Authorities, with a Labour Government at the centre of this country, 10 is not better than 8, because 10 does not equal 8 plus 3. If that is not an example, as clearly as it can be spelt out, of precisely why local authorities suspect words like "partnership" then I do not know what is.

Mr. Manuel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The Tory Party, he in particular, is introducing politics into the debate. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman has had experience of serving in local government; many hon. Members have. I have been a representative on various authorities, electricity, county councils and so on. Despite the fact that there are two parties, representa-

tives are selected from each side according to who is the best man to do the job. That is the rule in Scotland and I hope it is the same in England.

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). I do not know much about local government in Scotland, but he knows as well as I do that in local government in this country where there are political groupings the vast majority of appointments to committees and as chairmen are made on a party basis, depending on who won the last municipal election. As none of the areas listed for Passenger Transport Authorities is in Scotland, I do not withdraw one word of what I suggested; that in the elections which could take place within the four areas which are likely first to get Passenger Transport Authorities 10 is not better than 8 plus 3, and that is not a partnership. That is a direct attempt by central Government to take unto itself more power at a time when the country yearns for more power to be returned to the people in the provinces and not centralised in London.
My argument does not only concern the political balance, although that is serious enough for hon. Members on this side of the House. There is, for example, the weighting of the big city centre against smaller local authorities outside; the weighting of those people living on the left of the city against those living on the right. Wherever one looks there will be a division of opinion within the Passenger Transport Authority, and, where that division exists on anything except an overwhelming basis, it is those three men from the Ministry of Transport who will be vitally important men because, as the Minister of State said, they are the men who bring with them the money from Whitehall. Without their blessing and agreement, the whole programme as wished for by the local people can be set at nought, unless the Ministry's nominees are prepared to go back to their masters in Whitehall and say, "We agree with the proposals of the local people." That is not partnership, and it is no use the Minister pretending that it is.
If it were genuine partnership, no doubt much of the fury in the local authorities would not exist, but it must be inconceivable to the Minister of State that, having argued so passionately for


so long in favour of passenger transport authorities, even now, when the benefits which are supposed to flow from them stare the local authorities in the face, he cannot find one local authority which does anything but attack him and his Ministry for the proposals embodied in the legislation. In those circumstances, I do not understand—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. It is true that the Minister went rather wide of the Amendment, and I have allowed the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) a good deal of scope, but I think that he ought now to come back to the Amendment, which is concerned with the Royal Commission.

Mr. Heseltine: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I agree that the Amendment is concerned with the Royal Commission, but the Royal Commission will report upon the very subjects at the centre of the whole discussion of passenger transport authorities. It is because the local authorities are aware that a new set of proposals will come from the passenger transport authorities that it is important for me to attack the existing proposals, which are simply not wanted by the local authorities.
8.15 p.m.
These discussions were first entered into on the Floor of the House nearly 12 months ago. One of the central themes advanced by those who advocate the proposals on behalf of the Government is that the Opposition do not want any form of passenger transport authority. However, that has never been our position. We would like to see a consultative authority set up at the earliest opportunity, because we believe that there is a vital job to be done, and it is a job which must run parallel with the work now being carried out by the Royal
Commission on Local Government—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is still rather wide of the Amendment, which is concerned with the timing and relationship of the Royal Commission's Report. The hon. Gentleman must come back to that.

Mr. Heseltine: With great deference to your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I appreciate that this might appear to be wider of the mark than one would

like at this stage of the debate. But what is happening in the deliberations of the Royal Commission is that proposals are being prepared for the way in which local government is to be reorganised. When that happens, all the various facets of the passenger transport authorities will have to be reorganised as a result of the proposals flowing from the Royal Commission.
Perhaps I might give one example of the sort of situation which arises. Newcastle is to have a passenger transport authority. At the present time, while we are awaiting the political judgments on the reorganisation of local government from the Royal Commission, a land-use transportation survey is taking place at a cost of something like £500,000 to discover what are the real transportation needs of the area. I agree that that should be happening, and it has happened in many of the other areas proposed to he affected by passenger transport authorities. In other words, one has a political examination and a transportation examination taking place. But it is only when one has both sets of proposals that one can make a once and for all recommendation for the reorganisation of local government, one of the principal facets of which is local transportation and all that flows from it.
It seems quite extraordinary that the Ministry, which is as aware of this as anyone could be and which has submitted evidence to the Royal Commission that it is very difficult to fault, can still go ahead with the tail-end of the investigations which are going on before we get the proposals themselves. Anyone who has read the evidence of the Ministry to the Royal Commission will understand that it has argued precisely the case which I advocate. It says in its memorandum:
The same principle applies to the transport functions of local government. In practical terms it is important not only to co-ordinate the various local authority transport services one with another; the planning of highway construction and improvement of traffic control measures and of public transport services must also be based on a full appreciation of plans for land-use".
That is what it is all about—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: But it is not what the Amendment is about, and the hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendment.

Mr. Heseltine: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am quoting from the Ministry of Transport's memorandum to the Royal Commission. This is obviously part of the Royal Commission's considerations, and I cannot see how it can be irrelevant to our discussions. Without waiting for the Royal Commission's Report, the Ministry is proceeding with action which could be contradictory to what it has asked for already.

Mr. Leadbitter: It is not clear to me what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do. Is he saying that the evidence before the Royal Commission was an indication that that was what it was required to do, or is he saying that it was evidence of what should be done about transport, which is a separate subject?

Mr. Heseltine: I am making it clear, by quoting from the Ministry's evidence, that it knows that the priorities are to draw together the various local government departments concerned with highways, the planning of roads and the operation and provision of services. The threads have to be drawn together. We are waiting to see how the Royal Commission proposes that the exercise should be carried out.

Mr. Leadbitter: That is the hon. Gentlemen's interpretation. Does he now agree that what he has said about the P.T.A.s is obviously wrong and that he should be supporting the Government's case?

Mr. Heseltine: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would not be convenient to the House for me to quote at length from speeches that I have made on the subject over many months. But those who have heard them will agree that there is nothing inconsistent in what I have said tonight.
There we have the target set for the Royal Commission by the Ministry. Having spelt out what it is hoped will be achieved, it is extraordinary that the Ministry should now be going ahead with the reorganisation of certain parts of public transport services long before we have been able to examine the Royal Commission's proposals. I would have thought that that answered the case more completely than any other quotation one could produce.
My concern and that of all those living in areas which are to be affected by

passenger transport authorities is that if one ignores the delay, which could only be a year or 18 months, before we can examine the Report of the Royal Commission, and proceeds with a reorganisation of transport without the Royal Commission's recommendations, passenger transport authorities will be set up with all the ramifications flowing from them and then, within about nine months, we shall require another Transport Bill to try and incorporate the then existing authorities within some new framework of local government reorganisation as yet unknown. An immense amount of energy and ingenuity will have gone into the Bill and the work flowing from the Bill, and then there will have to be another Bill. How much better it would be if the consultative organisation which we advocate took the place of the proposals that we are now discussing, which could go ahead with the drawing together of the essential threads of this extremely tangled web without the waste of talent and time involved in implementing the proposed legislation.

Mr. Charles Mapp: The contribution that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) is the one that I expected from the Opposition. I very much regret that we consistently get a wholly prejudiced political kind of speech on this topic. I would have preferred to hear an informed case about the operations of the transport authority rather than the kind of stuff we have heard from the hon. Member for Tavistock who, quite clearly, is not familiar with large industrial areas where the problems of passenger transport are really acute and, in the main, have to be solved by transport operators with a wide vision of what is required.
I am very familiar with the Manchester area, and I would like to correct the hon. Member for Tavistock on one matter. The Conservative Council in Oldham, which I regret exists in its second year, is running a fleet of nearly 250 vehicles. The Council is running services now not only in Oldham, but across the adjacent Lancashire County Council boundaries running into and within the City of Manchester. Yet the political friends of the hon. Member for Tavistock on some occasions less prejudiced than he, have


considered the facts and decided that they are unable to find any better alternative to the intricate and difficult passenger transport operations that are known within the Manchester conurbation. I hope that future debates will be more fruitful in bringing out the facts. Referring to this imaginary 10 and eight principle that the hon. Member for Tavistock was talking about, I hope that those kinds of people will be more transport minded than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Heseltine: Mr. Heseltine rose—

Mr. Mapp: I will give way in a moment. May I assure the hon. Member for Tavistock that, concerning transport, there are many obstinate facts which go beyond the realm of politics. We have to try to work our social philosophy, as it were, into the obstinate facts of moving people and goods, even within the archaic local government structure of the 5 million people in and around the Manchester area. Regardless of what the hon. Member for Tavistock says about professional people not recommending this kind of thing, his knowledge is limited by those visits to Manchester which are now and again arranged by Smith Square with a view to getting an end result they wanted to start with.

Mr. Heseltine: Mr. Heseltine rose—

Mr. Mapp: The people who are worried about doing the job that the public want know full fell that here is the main nucleus of the future, and much depends on the kind of brains, whether they be Tory, Socialist or Liberal, which will be put into this kind of operation, the officials and professional men being conscious of the general well-being.
I dismiss out of hand the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Tavistock. It contributed nothing to the world of transport. In many ways it was a waste of time of this House. I will give way if the hon. Gentleman seeks to help me on the point.

Mr. Heseltine: I cannot know whether the Oldham Council has passed some resolution in favour of passenger transport authorities. If it has, I am not aware of it. I obviously do not suggest that the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) would do anything other than report the facts to the House, but he will

be aware that the council most affected by the proposals, the Manchester City Council, is totally opposed to the establishment of passenger transport authorities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Clause 9 is not for debate. The Amendment is merely concerned with the Royal Commission. Clause 9 should not be operated until after the receipt of the Report of the Royal Commission. Hon. Members are going much wider than the Amendment. I hope they will stick to the Amendment. Mr. Mapp.

Mr. Mapp: I was attempting to direct my thoughts to the fact that, even within the existing structure of local government, with all its contradictions, at least in Oldham a Conservative Council, having considered all the alternatives, finds that it is unable to do anything better. Whilst I am aware that Manchester has this prejudiced political view, it arises not from a study of transport in and around local authorities, but because of the road structure. It arises because of a political viciousness that has been generated both here and elsewhere. It brings nothing to the debate and does not help the future of transport in any way.

Sir R. Cary: The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) was a little unkind to my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) in accusing him of being unfamiliar with the requirements of large industrial areas. No Member on this side of the House has taken more trouble than the hon. Member for Tavistock to familiarise himself with the industrial and transport problems not only of the Newcastle area, but of the Manchester area, too.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman was sent up there to do it.

Sir R. Cary: Let us be fair to my hon. friend the Member for Tavistock. Though he speaks fluently, cogently and lustily, a talent for which I envy him, in putting his point of view he speaks for the majority of voices on this side of the House.
The Minister of State has raised a number of issues going rather wider than the Amendment. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock raised


the principle of the P.T.A.s. Of course we accept the principle of the P.T.A.s.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would indicate to the hon. Member that that is exactly what I took exception to in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine). The question of P.T.A.s is not under discussion tonight.

Sir R. Cary: I will try hard not to drift.
The Minister of State should understand that this is not a wrecking Amendment. There is no intention other than to improve the Bill. But we on this side of the House hold the view that the P.T.A.s cannot succeed unless they are firmly based upon local government. The powers envisaged in the Bill belong almost wholly in the hands of the Minister. We want that power shed to the local authorities.
I am sorry that we have not got the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government before the House, even at this late hour in the closing stages of this long debate on the Bill, but the local authorities in the end have to determine the pattern and how a public transport authority shall work. Therefore, the more responsibility that we can give to the local interests, as distinct from the interests of the conurbations, what I might call the front-line interests of the conurbation in contrast to the planning—and some of it has been quite good in the whole of the scheme envisaged by the Ministry of Transport—so much the better it will be to operate the provisions of the Bill.
8.30 p.m.
The Bill in the form in which it has been presented to the House had its beginnings, not in the Minister of State's mind, or in the minds of his colleagues. It perhaps began in the time of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) when some years ago, as Minister of Transport, he launched his great scheme of traffic surveys and an examination of the future of urban land. I remember going to his first great pronouncement on this subject to about 80 authorities within the Manchester area. That, I think, was the seed of the P.T.A.s envisaged in the Bill.
All the Amendment asks is that some of the vital powers possessed by the Ministry should be shed to the local authority, particularly when the P.T.A.s have to be set up. I am sure that the hon. Member for Oldham, East will agree with me when I say that in the conurbation of which I know best, that of the Manchester area containing about 70 to 80 local authorities, only 25 of those authorities will be represented on the P.T.A. There will be an enormous number of smaller local authorities, interests, and urban district councils which will have no say in the consultations which must take place, and which, if they are to be reasonably well done, will take a considerable time. I am therefore sorry that the Minister of State is hostile to what has been proposed. I think that if the Amendment were accepted it would not only be helpful to the Bill, but would save the Government from drifting into many silly mistakes in the future.

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Heseltine) must be credited with the claim made for him by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) that he has done an extreme amount of hard work on this part of the Bill. It would be wrong for any Member to minimise the amount of effort and work that has been done by any Member, on whatever side of the House he sits. The hon. Member for Tavistock and I have crossed swords on this subject time and time again, but I must tell him that the debates were all the better for his having done a good deal of research. That does not mean, however, that he is right in what he says about the Amendment.
I am glad that the debate tonight is confined to the simple word "when", because all the arguments about the merits of the case have long since been deployed, as have all the arguments about the demerits of the P.T.A.s. No one can alter the difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. If, however, we are to be deprived of what might be called a second bite at the cherry, I think that we should address ourselves to the facts. I was therefore sorry to hear the hon. Member for Tavistock claim that nobody was in agreement with the setting up of the P.T.A.s. That is a sweeping statement which at one fell swoop destroys the


conclusion to which we would all like to come, that the hon. Gentleman's work was done with the degree of impartiality which the importance of the subject commands. The hon. Gentleman has displayed a weakness. He has allowed the prejudicial part of his thinking to interfere with the constructive part of his homework. When I say that, I do not mean to imply that the knowledge he has gained from hours and months of hard work is any the less for that.
It is a pity that the subject of P.T.A.s has from time to time been spoilt by this injection of prejudicial thinking. I do not say that it is political thinking. People both inside and outside the House have been misled by the complete misrepresentation of the facts. Therefore, there are innocents on this side of the House who from time to time feel that there may have been something premature or something wrong—something that was rather an infringement upon the freedom of local authorities—in placing the statutory charge—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is once again seeking to argue the merits of Clause 9. I must ask him to come back to the Amendment.

Mr. Leadbitter: I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall not attempt to go beyond the terms of your Ruling by any subtle reasoning. I shall return to the question of when.
If we address ourselves objectively to the question and accept what the Minister of State said earlier, that if we confine ourselves to the wording of the Amendment, several areas will be involved. I therefore ask the House to say by what stretch of the imagination anyone with any responsibility for this country, and bearing in mind the serious congestion, economic loss, frustration, death and accidents on the roads, can accept that, especially in the four conurbations referred to, we can delay plans to set afoot a more rational and efficient method of dealing with transport problems. Wherever political or prejudicial arguments are employed the area of doubt lies in favour of getting on with the job as soon as possible.
I have said that the hon. Member for Tavistock used the sweeping statement that no one agreed with the P.T.A.s. The

answer to that is quite clear from the minutes of the Association of Municipal Corporations. That national body has agreed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I endeavoured to prevent the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) from arguing that point. I hope that the hon. Member will not follow it up.

Mr. Leadbitter: I shall try to confine myself to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The A.M.C. has agreed that it should not wait for the local boundary commission to report in respect of the four conurbations. In this respect the hon. Member for Tavistock was wrong. I agree that the A.M.C. has reservations about the P.T.A.s, but on the question of the conurbations it regards the matter as so serious that the minutes include a determined decision to get on and support urgently the P.T.A. idea for the four conurbations before the Boundary Commission reports.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member is as aware as I am that the minutes to which he has referred make it clear that while the A.M.C. is in favour of some form of progress the precise passenger transport authorities, as laid down in this legislation, are not acceptable.

Mr. Leadbitter: That is not the right use of the language. However, I do not wish to develop the point too much, because I must keep within your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The main issue concerns the question when the P.T.A.s shall be set up. At least a large proportion of the plan for the conurbations has been supported by the A.M.C. It has also been supported by other authorities. It would be wrong to debate those details now, but the hon. Member for Tavistock overstated his case when he said that no one supported this.
I would comment on his simple arithmetic. Whether he was thinking in terms of the P.T.A.s set up either in accordance with the Government's wishes now, or in accordance with the Amendment several years from now, his simple arithmetic shows wrong thinking. Why did he pick 10 and eight and then, because the Minister has the power to appoint one-seventh of the 21 members of the authority stick those three on the eight and conclude that 10 was better than


eight? On the other hand, why not pick 10 and six or 10 and seven? Better still, why not ignore the arithmetic and try to understand what appointments to boards of this kind mean?
His own party, when in power, did a good deal of reorganisation of river boards and drainage boards. Under that legislation, the interesting situation arose in which my authority and Stockton had to share a delegation every three years, so we had half a delegate each. Thus, he is not talking about representation on the P.T.A.s in practical terms.
It is no good trying to defeat a Bill's purposes purely on the simple arithmetic of representation. The hon. Member must understand that local authorities, public utilities and bodies of all kinds have a long and well-established reputation for putting forward nominations to serve the interests concerned. It does net follow that when a local authority nominates someone either to the P.T.A. in the area or to any other body, their representation will be any less in the terms which the hon. Member envisages.
To take an extreme example, he makes the mistake of thinking that, since my right hon. Friend is to appoint three members to the P.T.A.s, they will come from Whitehall. If that were the case, the Minister of State would have a row on his hands from this side of the House. I lake it that it is intended that the Minister will make nominations after receiving recommendations from interested bodies. It appears that the advantages to the P.T.A.s would be enhanced by nominations coming from outside local authorities of people with a minority position, having special knowledge to offer, as well as the local knowledge on which to work, which would bring to the P.T.A.s advantages rather than the great disadvantages which the hon. Member foresees.
Therefore, his simple arithmetic is wrong and misconceived. His conclusions are based on wrong premises and his knowledge of local authority nominations and Ministerial appointments of this kind is very "off wicket". The establishment of the P.T.A. in the four conurbations which I have mentioned is a matter of great urgency in considering the country's transport. There are many lives to be saved as well as great economies to be made.
If we are to address ourselves strictly to the Amendment, we are not arguing about the principle. We are not arguing whether it is right or wrong. We are arguing when we should do it. The question, therefore, is as follows: is the problem so serious that it should be dealt with as early as possible or should it be dealt with in several years time? The answer must be that it should be dealt with as soon as possible.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Harold Gurden: We have heard some rather surprising statements this evening. It has been claimed that the setting up of the P.T.A. will have a considerable effect on traffic congestion and will even save lives. Surely that is a lot of nonsense. As an experienced Birmingham City councillor, as I consider myself to be, I suggest that no P.T.A. will ever do the job better than the Birmingham authority have done it in the past. For a serious claim to be made that it will be done better by the P.T.A. is nonsense.
The Minister claimed that it will be some years before the findings of the Royal Commission can be put into operation. Clearly the Government want it both ways. I am sure that they will tell us that the constituency boundaries cannot be altered because quite soon we shall have the Royal Commission's Report on local government. It looks to me as though the Minister in charge of the Bill has not consulted his senior colleagues, because he has put them in a little trouble by letting the cat out of the bag and telling us that the Royal Commission's Report will not be in effect for some years.

Mr. Swingler: I did not say that the Report would not be received for some years. The Amendment argues that the P.T.A. should not be set up until the Royal Commission's recommendations have been implemented. That is why I referred to the long period.

Mr. Gurden: That excuse may be valid, but I must tell the hon. Member that my suspicions are aroused.
Birmingham is a very large transport authority, and the large transport authorities are entitled to some information from the Royal Commission on what their recommendations will be. If not, I am


sure that the P.T.A. set up for the West Midlands area will be faulty. Surely the Government ought to take some notice of the mistakes of the past over nationalisation, in respect of which they realise that they ought to have waited for better information. We are suffering as a consequence of that and we have suffered as a consequence for years. Through hasty legislation in setting up authorities such as this, we shall only repeat the errors of the past.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Is the hon. Member aware that there is no guarantee that the Royal Commission's Report will be accepted by anybody? It will not be accepted as the law until Parliament approves it. Everyone knows that there will be a great deal of argument and discussion with local authorities about it. I agree with the Minister that it may well be six or seven years before the Royal Commission's Report is put into effect—if it is accepted.

Mr. Gurden: That only confirms my argument that the Government will be arguing one way when it comes to adjusting constituency boundaries and another way when it suits them for the P.T.A. to be set up.
Birmingham is a very large transport undertaking which can only lose as a result of this proposal. It is likely that through the fares structure it will have to subsidise the other local authority areas when the P.T.A. is set up. It is very important to the Midlands and certainly to the Birmingham constituents to know by how much they must subsidise to help the smaller local authorities. They ought to be told with which local authorities they will ultimately deal. We are apparently to set up a P.T.A. in an area which, according to the Minister, later will be changed. Surely that is wasteful and most unfair to the citizens of Birmingham, who have built up the capital in this large transport undertaking and who will be on the giving end and not on the receiving end.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) is just as interested in this matter on behalf of her constituents as I am on behalf of mine. They certainly will not like the proposal unless the

Government take other action to meet the needs of those who have to operate the scheme and to give them some information about what the ultimate arrangements will be. I cannot see the point of setting up a P.T.A. for the West Midlands until we know exactly what the Royal Commission will report. As for the suggestion that it will save lives and ease traffic congestion, in fact it will have no effect on that at all.

Mr. Peter Mahon: I would not wish to do the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) an injustice. Having been a member of the Standing Committee, like him, for five months, I must describe his advocacy tonight as having been not only eloquent but sincere, according to his lights. The argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite has been that some drastic problems must await the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government. My hon. Friends are entitled to wonder what is to happen in the mean time.
Undue delay could result in transport grinding to a halt. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have argued that the Royal Commission's Report will represent a panacea for all ills. It is often said that drastic measures require drastic remedies. Transport in the conurbations is already chaotic in the extreme. In areas like Liverpool, Manchester and Tyneside something must be done without delay. To delay now might be dangerous and it is irresponsible to suggest that we should await any report. It is imperative that changes are introduced quickly because real progress is being bedevilled by inadequate and inefficient transport arrangements.
The hon. Member for Tavistock said that expert opinion was against the arrangement we are discussing. The definition of an expert is a man who knows too much about too little. We have found to our sorrow that the experts are only too often representative of vested interests and are not primarily concerned with the interests of the travelling public. Whatever is said about the Royal Commission being able to cope speedily and adequately with this complex problem, something must be done now.
Having served on a local authority for 35 years, I would not decry the


efficiency and competency of local government. Too often in Parliament we hear of the inefficiency of local government, but we are not justified in making these assertions without sometimes looking to our own laurels. We are occasionally contemptuous when we complain without paying sufficient attention to what has been achieved by local government.
The hon. Member for Tavistock has a high I.O. His intelligence perhaps leads him to be sceptical or cynical. The voting habits of people are often open to question. Time is transient. People's voting habits change almost hourly. We need not be unduly perturbed about the political complexion of those who make up committees which are appointed. The hon. Gentleman's fears are not real enough and, although he spoke sincerely and eloquently, he did not prove his case.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: When this Amendment was considered in another place, noble Lords with great experience and knowledge of the traffic problems of the conurbations of the West Midlands—Manchester, Tyneside., and so on—were in evidence, but by some extraordinary freak there was no noble Lord present with experience of the traffic problems of Mersey-side. This Administration cannot be accused of being niggardly in the distribution of honours to Merseyside. I can only presume that on that occasion none of the noble gentlemen or ladies who knew about Liverpool were present, so today I wish to put in my plug for Liverpool on the consequences of the Amendment.
This part of the Bill is one of those obnoxious Clauses which begin, "Should the Minister consider it expedient" or words to that effect—and expediency, in the mind of the Minister, is the only criterion given to us. The Minister said that the Government regard the establishment of P.T.A.s as urgent, but who else regards their establishment as urgent? The people of Liverpool do not. Nor does the council there. The local council has made its view clear in a vigorous way. It is the mysterious "We" in the Minister's remark, "We regard their establishment as urgent" that makes us wonder why these P.T.A.s must be established in

advance of the Report of the Royal Commission.
9.0 p.m.
Traffic problems in Liverpool are serious, as anyone who knows the city will agree, but they are not insoluble by the present methods. They are being tackled very bravely by a succession of Liverpool city administrators. New tunnels and new roads are being built. Things will improve whether or not we have a P.T.A. there. I suggest that this sense of urgency for a P.T.A. on Mersey-side in advance of the implementation of the Royal Commission's Report exists entirely in the mind of the Government and in the mind of no one else at all.
A second point that has not been answered is: what does the Royal Commission on Local Government itself think of the proposal to designate P.T.A. areas in advance of its Report being considered and implemented? In another place, a noble Lord suggested that the Royal Commission should be consulted, because it would seem obvious to anyone that the views of its members would be pertinent and valuable in considering this problem. We have had no news at all from anyone that the Royal Commission has been consulted. It seems that it is required to go on working in a vacuum somewhere on the redesignation of local government boundaries and quite apart from any consideration being given to this aspect of the Bill.
I should like to draw attention to the concluding words of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, speaking for the Government in the House of Lords debate on this Amendment just before it was carried. The argument was that the recommendations of the Royal Commission should be taken into account before any P.T.A. areas were designated, and Lord Stonham said, as a statement of Government policy, that the Government would in fact take these recommendations into account. He stated:
The Minister has given sufficient indication that over the country as a whole he will have regard, in any proposals he makes for setting up Passenger Transport Areas, to the recommendations which may be made by the Royal Commission.
There it is, in black and white.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Whatever the Royal Commission may decide will not affect Clause 9 and the principle


of P.T.A.s. The hon. Gentleman is therefore out of order in what he says.

Mr. Fortescue: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are talking about an Amendment which proposes that Clause 9 should not be put into force until the Royal Commission has reported.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understand it, whatever the Royal Commission decides does not negative Clause 9. It is a question of timing, not of the principle of Clause 9, which we are discussing tonight.

Mr. Fortescue: With respect, I find your reasoning a little difficult to follow, but I will, of course, defer to your Ruling. It was my belief that what we were trying to decide was whether or not the Minister should have the power to designate P.T.A. areas in advance of the recommendations of the Royal Commission being implemented.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said in almost the next sentence:
But we cannot wait till those recommendations, which we have not yet received, have been considered …
If the Minister is to take into account those recommendations but cannot wait until they have been received, how can he put into effect the policy that he says the Government is to put into effect? This seems to be a feat of prevision which up to now has not been possible for them. It is some extra sensory knowledge that Ministers in this matter have but of which others do not have the benefit.
At the very end of his remarks Lord Stonham said:
It is our intention, however, that in those areas "—
that is, in the four conurbations about which we are talking:
the P.T.A.s should be reabsorbed more directly into local government when and if a suitable local government organisation, just like Greater London, is in existence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 24th June, 1968; Vol. 293, c. 1201–2.]
What on earth does that mean? How will these P.T.A. areas be reabsorbed having been set up by this very elaborate procedure outlined in the Bill, and having gone through all the processes which, incidentally, will take some years? The process from the first day when the first

Order is obtained until the final P.T.A. is effective will take up to two or three years.
Having done all that, all the authorities having been established, all the executives having been established, all the reports having been made, then, according to the noble Lord, the area will be reabsorbed into a new local authority. This is nonsense. Anyone with any common sense will recognise that the sensible course is to wait for the recommendations of the Royal Commission and then to tailor the local transport passenger transport areas to those recommendations.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that there was no feeling in Liverpool or on Merseyside in favour of an integrated transport system. For the information of the hon. Gentleman, who has not been associated with Merseyside for as long as I have, I state that an argument has raged in that district for a long time in favour of an integrated transport system on a much wider basis than has hitherto existed. If the hon. Gentleman goes into the history, he will find there is a good deal of feeling on Merseyside in favour of such a system.

Mr. Fortescue: I did not say anything of the sort. I did not say that there was no feeling in Liverpool for an integrated transport system. I know the strength of the feeling there. I said that there was no feeling in Liverpool that there was any urgency to such a system before the Royal Commission has made its recommendations.

Mr. Heffer: I say that there is a feeling of urgency.

Mr. Swingler: By leave of the House, I will reply very briefly to the debate. I realise from your Rulings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I went rather wide in my opening remarks, but I thought it right to deal with the reasons which were advanced in favour of the Amendment. That involved my going into reasons concerning the constitution of P.T.A.s as proposed in the Bill and which have been argued as reasons for postponement.
I find a slight difficulty, as I have done previously, in replying, because I know that I am confronted with two types of


criticism. There are those who are wholly opposed to P.T.A.s as such and who therefore support the Amendment as an indefinite postponment of the establishment of such organisations. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) probably falls into that category—those who are root and branch opposed to the idea and who therefore do not want to see it operating. Obviously we cannot accept the view of those critics and there is nothing further that I can argue with them, except to say that they have failed to provide any constructive alternative to the concept of the passenger transport authority.
It is conveyed to me by the flavour of the speech of the hon. Member for Garston that apparently some people are relatively satisfied with the traffic situation in Liverpool or with highway planning there. That is not an opinion which has been powerfully conveyed to me and I do not think that those who represent central Birmingham, central Liverpool, or the centres of any of the big cities, are in a state of complacency and are prepared to postpone for ten, or even for five, years any effective action. This is a matter on which the House must judge.
There is the other type of critic such as the hon Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) who is in favour of the P.TA.: "I am not hostile to the Amendment. My difficulty is that none of us here knows what would be involved in accepting it." The Amendment says:
after local government has been organised in the light of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government ".
No hon. Member can say whether that means postponing any action for three years, five years or 25 years. It might be 25 years, because the reorganisation of local government is a matter which arises not just out of decisions of this House but out of massive consultations with all local authorities in the country. One cannot, therefore, say what is involved.
My simple objection to those who agree that some effective action must be taken along the lines of establishing passenger transport authorities to link the responsibilities of highway planning, traffic management and public transport operations but, who nevertheless do not accept the Government's proposal is that we cannot wait for anything from five to 25 years in our great congested urban areas.

We must act now. It is not sufficient to set up consultative committees, either. We must act by means of effective executive bodies.
In spite of the difficulties, obstacles and risks involved, it would, therefore, be a dereliction of duty on our part to accept as a line of least resistance a proposal to make a protracted postponement of effective action in these urban areas.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am disappointed by the Minister of State's reply, and I am particularly disappointed by his suggestion that no alternative to the Government's proposal has been put forward. Those who study the OFFICIAL REPORT of our proceedings in Committee will find there detailed proposals outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) to deal with this very problem. All the way through the debates on passenger transport authorities, we on this side made perfectly clear that we consider that there is a case for further co-ordination of services and a case for some action in the major conurbations, and we have set out in detail exactly what we would wish to see.
The Minister of State knows that we disagree fundamentally on the question of placing all the bus companies which are at present operated by democratically elected local authorities in the hands of passenger transport authorities on which, quite possibly, some of them will have no representation, or, if they have representation at all, only minor representation. It is quite possible for a local authority which carries on bus operations now to have no representation save through the county council, whereas at present it has direct representation through the borough. Those objections have been made throughout all our debates.
I am alarmed to hear the Minister of State say that, in his view—presumably, he speaks for the Government—when the Royal Commission on Local Government reports, as everyone eagerly hopes it will in a month or so, no action will be taken on it for five to 25 years. That is a remarkably lethargic attitude to the urgent need for the reform of local government. However, even on that supposition, it would be far better to have the type of machinery which my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock outlined, under which democratically elected


local authorities come together to improve co-ordination between the various transport services, than to do what the Government propose, that is, provide for compulsory purchase by what is, to some extent, a non-democratically elected passenger transport authority.
The urgent problem in our conurbations is not that of the ownership and operation of buses. The urgent problems are questions of road improvement, providing parking facilities and seeing that what transport services do exist are linked better with other transport services. Those matters do not call for the sort of compulsory purchase powers which it is proposed to give to the passenger transport authorities.
Moreover, by rejecting the Lords Amendment the Government will create a great deal of uncertainty. If these four major passenger transport authorities are created, the people working in them will know that there is a probability that, in a few years, with local government reform, the whole pattern of boundaries in their area will change. This is an absolute absurdity. One of the things that has worked against the transport system for some years is the uncertainty of the

services. A much better approach to the whole problem would have been first to set up a better co-ordinating machinery in the conurbations and then, when the Royal Commission had reported, to decide what boundaries one wished to draw for any operations one wished to carry out.

The fact is that the local authorities throughout the country and those interested in the transport problems of the conurbations—who have to face the practical problems involved—agree with us. But the Government are absolutely persistent on this point once more, because in four of our major conurbations they, from Whitehall, wish to lay down the boundaries, irrespective of the Report of a Royal Commission; they, from Whitehall, wish to see the local government control, the elected members' control, of bus operations taken away.

For these reasons, I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the Government in their desire to remove the Amendment from another place.

Question put. That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment: —

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 212.

Division No. 293.]
AYES
[9.14 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ensor, David


Albu, Austen
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Carmichael, Neil
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Vardley)


Alldritt, Walter
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Faulds, Andrew


Anderson, Donald
Coe, Denis
Fernyhough, E.


Archer, Peter
Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Armstrong, Ernest
Concannon, J. D.
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Ashley, Jack
Conlan, Bernard
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ford, Ben


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Forrester, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crawshaw, Richard
Fowler, Gerry


Barnes, Michael
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Baxter, William
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Freeson, Reginald


Beaney, Alan
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bence, Cyril
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Gardner, Tony


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Garrett, W. E.


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ginsburg, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. p. C.


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gregory, Arnold


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, S. o. (Merthyr)
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Booth, Albert
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Boston, Terence
Dell, Edmund
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dempsey, James
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Boyden, James
Dewar, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Ham ling, William


Bradley, Tom
Dickens, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dobson, Ray
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Brooks, Edwin
Doig, Peter
Hattersley, Roy


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dunn, James A.
Hazell, Bert


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Brown,Bob(N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Eadie, Alex
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Buchan, Norman
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hilton, W. S.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ellis, John
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Ennals, David
Hooley, Frank




Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Robinson,Rt.Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Howie, W.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow.E.)


Hoy, James
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Manuel, Archie
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mapp, Charles
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Marks, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert


Hunter, Adam
Marquand, David
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Hynd, John
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Mayhew, Christopher
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mendelson, J. J.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Millan, Bruce
Silverman, Julius


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Slater, Joseph


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Moonman, Eric
Small, William


Johnson James (K'ston-on-Hull w)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Moyle, Roland
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Swain, Thomas


Judd, Frank
Neal, Harold
Swingler, Stephen


Kelley, Richard
Newens, Stan
Symonds, J. B.



Oakes, Gordon
Taverne, Dick


Kenyon, Clifford
O'Malley, Brian
Thomas Rt. Hn. George


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Oram, Albert E.
Thornton, Ernest


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Orbach, Maurice
Tinn, James,


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Orme, Stanley
Tomney, Frank


Lawson, George
Oswald, Thomas
Urwin, T. W.


Leadbitter, Ted
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Padley, Walter
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Paget, R. T.
Weitzman, David


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Palmer, Arthur
Wellbeloved, James


Lipton, Marcus
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Whitaker, Ben


Lomas, Kenneth
Park, Trevor
Wilkins, W. A.


Loughlin, Charles
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


McBride, Neil
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


McCann, John
Pentland, Norman
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


MacColl, James
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Winnick, David


MacDermot Niall
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Macdonald, A. H.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Woof, Robert


McGuire, Michael
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Wyatt, Woodrow


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Price, William (Rugby)
Yates, victor


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Probert, Arthur



Mackie, John
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mackintosh, John P.
Rees, Merlyn
Mr. Harry Gourlay and


Maclennan, Robert
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Campbell, B. (Oldham, w.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Campbell Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fortescue, Tim


Astor, John
Carisle, Mark
Foster, Sir John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Cary, Sir Robert
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Awdry, Daniel
Channon, H. P. G.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Gibson-Watt, David


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Clegg, Walter
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan


Balniel, Lord
Cooke, Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cordle, John
Glyn, Sir Richard


Bell, Ronald
Corfield, F. V.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Costain, A. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Bessell, Peter
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Goodhew, Victor


Biffen, John
Crouch, David
Gower, Raymond


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Crowder, F. P.
Grant, Anthony


Black, Sir Cyril
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grant-Ferris, R.


Blaker, Peter
Dance, James
Grieve, Percy


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshlre,W.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Bossom, Sir Clive
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gurden, Harold


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hall-Davis, A. C. F.


Braine, Bernard
Doughty, Charles
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Eden, Sir John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Errington, Sir Eric
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Bryan, Paul
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Eyre, Reginald
Hastings, Stephen


Bullus, Sir Eric
Farr, John
Hawkins, Paul


Burden, F. A.
Fisher, Nigel
Hay, John







Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Silvester, Frederick


Heseltine, Michael
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Higgins, Terence L.
Miscampbell, Norman
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hill, J. E. B.
Monro, Hector
Smith, John (London &amp; W 'minster)


Holland, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus
Speed, Keith


Hooson, Emlyn
More, Jasper
Stainton, Keith


Hordern, Peter
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hornby, Richard
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Murton, Oscar
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hunt, John
Neave, Airey
Tapsell, Peter


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)



Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Iremonger, T. L.
Nott, John
Teeling, Sir William


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Onslow, Cranley
Temple, John M.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Tilney, John


Jopling, Michael
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Kimball, Marcus
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Waddington, David


Kitson, Timothy
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Percival, Ian
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Lambton, Viscount
Peyton, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pink, R. Bonner
Wall, Patrick


Lane, David
Pounder, Rafton
Walters, Dennis


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Ward, Dame Irene


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Webster, David


Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Prior, J. M. L.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pym, Francis
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Longden, Gilbert
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Loveys, W. H.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Lubbock, Eric
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


MacArthur, Ian
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Ridsdale, Julian
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Woodnutt, Mark


Maddan, Martin
Robson Brown, Sir William
Wright, Esmond


Maginnis, John E.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wylie, N. R.


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Younger, Hn. George


Marten, Neil
Royle, Anthony



Maude, Angus
Russell, Sir Ronald



Mawby, Ray
Scott, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Lords Amendment No. 30: In page 13, line 30, at end insert:
and shall send a draft thereof to every such local authority, and if any objection thereto is made by one or more than one such local authority the Minister may if he thinks fit order a public inquiry to be held in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 5.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps it would be convenient to take at the same time Amendment No. 213 which goes together with this one.

Mr. Speaker: There is no opposition. With Amendment No. 30 we will take Amendment No. 213.

Mr. Swingler: The simple point is that the Amendment requires the Minister to send a draft of any P.T.A. Order to local authorities affected, and gives him discretionary power to order a public inquiry if he thinks fit on an objection to a proposal to designate a Passenger Transport Area.
The Amendment is totally unnecessary for the reason that it is already provided for in the Bill. I feel that there must be a misunderstanding, since Clause 148 provides the Minister with the necessary discretionary power to order a public inquiry. Moreover, the Bill as it at present stands requires the Minister to consult with local authorities affected by any Order designating a Passenger Transport Area, so that is completely covered.
We have pledged ourselves that notice of any such draft Schemes will be published in the London Gazette, the national and local Press and the Traffic Commissioners' Notices and Proceedings so that the stage carriage operators, who are entitled under the Bill to a reasonable opportunity to make representations, may know exactly what is involved.
I give, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, the firm assurance that the Minister would not hesitate to use his power under Clause 148, which gives him the widest discretion for the ordering of


public inquiries, if he felt it was necessary to elucidate facts which the wide range of consultations, carried out informally over the past months and formally in the coming months, had failed to bring out. In all respects, therefore, the Amendment will be seen to be completely unnecessary. All the points made in it are covered in other Clauses. Therefore, to avoid superfluity, I hope that the House will disagree with their Lordships in their Amendment.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I agree that Clause 148 provides that the Minister may hold inquiries. However, I think that that is an argument in favour of the Lords Amendment. What their Lordships are doing is to spell out the sorts of inquiries and the terms under which they may be held. In addition, they insert the very important word "public" in the descriptions in Clause 148.
I would have thought that the Government would be happy to accept their Lordships' Amendment. It is merely expanding what is already in the Bill, arid I cannot see why the House need spend time debating it. It is obviously an Amendment which should be acceptable to the Government.
It is surprising to discover that the Government have given firm notice that they intend to reject it, and I find that difficult to understand. This part of the Bill deals with local authorities, where the public are intimately involved, and I cannot see why there should not be a clear-cut provision embodied in the legislation relating to Part II.
The arguments which reinforce what I want to say are already apparent to the Minister of State. The Lords Amendment is not obligatory on the Minister. It says that he may, where there has been an objection. There is no time delay involved in accepting the Amendment, because, at most, there is only a four-week delay for objections to be lodged, after which the Minister has power to decide whether and how soon after the lodging of objections the inquiry should take place.
The public inquiry does not commit the Minister to act on the findings or report of the inspector or on any of the revelations of the public inquiry. This

is an innocuous addition to the legislation. It does not commit the Government to anything or delay them. It merely spells out what the Minister of State tells us is already in the Bill. Why, then, should the Government see fit to reject this Amendment in such firm terms in advance of any discussion in this House?

Mr. Swingler: It is not for the Government to make out a case. It is for the hon. Gentleman to say why, when the Bill already provides in Clause 148 that the Minister may hold inquiries for the purposes of his functions under any provision of this legislation other than Part V, this should be repeated only in one part of the Bill. Does he argue in favour of first and second class inquiries?

Mr. Heseltine: No.

Mr. Swingler: In that case, since we have provided the discretionary power for the Minister over a wide range of his functions, why should it be repeated in regard to only one function?

Mr. Heseltine: I think that we should deal with the types of inquiries applying to other parts of the Bill when we come to them, and not be concerned with the generalisation embodied in Clause 148.
The point is that the important word "public" is missing from Clause 148.

Mr. Manuel: It is my understanding—possibly the hon. Member for Tavistock can help me—that under the wording of Clause 148, referring to Section 20 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, these inquiries are public

Mr. Heseltine: I would be interested to see Section 20 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919. If in fact public inquiries are to be held, there can be no objection to accepting the suggested Amendment which will spell out and clarify, relating to Part II, what the Government have said they will not accept. If there is already provision for the holding of public inquiries there can be no objection to spelling it out. But those of us on this side who have been involved in negotiations for over a year now have the sneaking suspicion that inquiries conducted by the Ministry of Transport on this legislation are not as complete, open and public as we would


like. There have been endless consultations and inquiries. If we had to find a contradiction to all the evidence and the submissions in those consultations and inquiries, we could not find a better contradiction than that embodied in Part II, because all the evidence submitted to the Ministry is against Part II.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Member knows, we are discussing two Amendments. We are not discussing Part II of the Bill.

Mr. Heseltine: I believe that there is an unanswerable case for including these words in the legislation. I believe that if an elected local authority wishes to submit an objection to the Minister there should be the possibility, in the Minister's discretion, of a public inquiry. It would be for us in this House to question the Minister if he should not feel prepared to grant a public inquiry, but at least we would know that, if there was to be an inquiry, it would be conducted in public.
It is important for the House to know—I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will feel this is a legitimate inclusion in the general discussion—the people who might want a public inquiry. It is important to many people that there should be the opportunity for their cases to be heard before the Order is laid in each of the areas that might be designated. There might, for example, be local authorities wanting to be included within the designated area contained in the Order about which there was to be a public inquiry; there might be local authorities included within the designated area wanting to be outside it. It is already known that there are local authorities now making submissions to the Ministry that they should be inside or outside, or whatever the case may be, and it is, therefore, reasonable that they should be heard at a public inquiry.
There are those whose livelihood depends on running bus services in and out of designated areas. I am aware that it is necessary for the Minister to consult bus operators running stage carriage services into a designated area; but it is not mandatory in the legislation for the Minister to consult those running excursion tours or contract carriages into the area. There is no provision for any inquiry amongst those people, so often least able to protect themselves. They are

not given the benefit of consultation or any form of public inquiry.
There are the large operators who have many joint operating agreements with local authorities included in the designated area. These people, too, might want to be sure that their cases are made clear before the Order is finally presented to this House.
The last group of people with reason to be sure that their case is presented in public before the Order is presented are the public themselves. It does not need me to argue why the public should be concerned. I believe that they will be fearful of increasing fares and rates in their areas, and it is right that their case should be heard in public before the Order is ratified by the Ministry for presentation to this House.
It seems to me that the arguments are overwhelming for including the Amendment in the legislation. In the words of the Minister of State, it is already there. If it is there in spirit, there can be no objection from the Government to including words which spell out what we are asking the House to do. It is not enough for the Minister of State to say that it is already there, because he knows that the word "public" is not included in the original legislation. I appreciate that if I wished to steer the Bill through the House I would not want the public in on it, either.

Mr. Bessell: I think that the most important matter upon which we wish to have information in our discussion of the Amendment is in relation to Clause 148, to which the Minister of State referred, and whether the 1919 Act, upon which that Clause is dependent, provides for a public inquiry. This is the nub of the matter, and the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) is one which I entirely support. If the Minister of State can say that the 1919 Act provides that an inquiry ordered by the Minister in circumstances of the kind envisaged by another place will be a public inquiry, then I should admit, and I think the hon. Member for Tavistock would be willing to admit, that a different issue would be involved.
As things stand, on the basis of the argument advanced by the Minister of State, the Minister of Transport already


has this provision which the hon. Gentleman maintains is the only consequence of the Amendment introduced by another place. The hon. Gentleman maintains that the Minister has this provision in Clause 148, which says:
The Minister may hold inquiries for the purposes of his functions under any provision of this Act other than Part V as if those purposes were purposes of the Ministry of Transport Act 1919 and section 20 of that Act shall apply accordingly.
As the hon. Member for Tavistock has rightly said, there is no reference whatsoever in that Clause to a public inquiry. If it means a private inquiry, one conducted by the Minister without the public being present, without it being possible for representations to be made by the public, by the people who will be most affected by the provisions of Clause 9, it is clear to me that their Lordships were right to introduce the Amendment, and I go as far as saying that it is a vital Amendment, because there are far too many public issues involved in relation to passenger transport areas and authorities for the Minister, for his own protection, not to have the right to order a public inquiry.

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Gentleman keeps on about this. Will he tell the House the occasions on which, when the Minister of Transport orders inquiries, he does not order them to be public? We order a considerable number of public inquiries. I should like to know, as the hon. Gentleman is so colossally suspicious, when they are not public inquiries.

Mr. Bessell: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, that it is the custom for the Minister of Transport, when ordering an inquiry, to make it a public one, but there are examples of Ministries, and Ministers in the present Government, ordering inquiries under powers granted to them under other Acts, and ensuring that they are not public inquiries. I think that I should be out of order to quote an example of that. The fact remains that where an Act provides that an inquiry may be held, that does not, as I understand it—in fact, I am sure about this—mean that a Minister has an obligation to make it a public inquiry.
9.45 p.m.
The purpose of the Amendment introduced in another place was to ensure that

there would be a public inquiry, reasonable to ask why it should be important that there should be a public inquiry in all circumstances. The reason is fairly obvious. In designating a passenger transport area the Minister is saying that a certain part of the country—which may consist of one urban conurbation and a large number of rural areas surrounding it—shall constitute a passenger transport area which, in turn, will have its own passenger transport authority and passenger transport executive. It will comprise one or perhaps a considerable number of local authorities.
I can visualise circumstances arising in which one or more local authorities may put forward objections to being included in the area while other local authorities in the designated area may wish those disagreeing authorities to be included for reasons which they regard as in the interests of their areas, although inclusion may be against the interests of the disagreeing authorities. In those circumstances, a conflict of interests or even of wishes on the part of one local authority or another may arise, and the Minister may decide that it is necessary to hold an inquiry.
It is very important that such an inquiry should be held in public and that it should be an inquiry at which not merely the views of local authorities concerned would be considered by the Minister's inspectors and ultimately by the Minister, but also the views of organisations directly concerned with transport—both public and private—and where the public should have the opportunity not merely of witnessing the proceedings but of knowing the proceedings day by day in terms of Press reports and the media of mass communication.
I believe that their Lordships acted wisely in this matter. They put their finger on a fundamental point. Although the Minister of State has repeated pledges that he gave in Standing Committee about the intentions of his right hon. Friend, we must remember that Ministers are not mortal and that there may be an occasion in the future on which a Minister might not feel obliged to be bound by his predecessor's pledges.

Mr. Swingler: I must point out to the hon. Member that the Amendment does not oblige my right hon. Friend to order


an inquiry in any circumstances. The hon. Member keeps arguing as if that was the object of the Amendment. It is not. The Amendment grants a discretionary power, which is already provided for in the Bill, to order an inquiry. My right hon. Friend frequently exercises this discretionary power and on nearly all occasions there is a public inquiry, because public issues are involved. That is the position. It is no use the hon. Gentleman's talking about a fundamental issue; the issue is that which is presented in Clause 148.

Mr. Bessell: The Minister of State, who has always been courteous, has not listened to what I said. My point is that there could be circumstances in which there was a disagreement between local authorities with whom consultations had taken place and to whom the Minister had himself spoken. There could be a disagreement on the question whether certain local authorities should be included or excluded from a certain passenger transport area. In those circumstances I suggest to the Minister of State that his right hon. Friend, for his own protection and that of his Department, may wish to hold an inquiry.
The Minister of State argues—and I follow his argument—that in terms of Clause 148 such an inquiry could be held. But that inquiry, according to Clause 148, would have to comply with the 1919 Act, and what no one has told me yet is whether, under the terms of that Act, that would have to be a public or a private inquiry—

Mr. Peter Walker: I can inform the hon. Gentleman on this, if he will allow me—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that we are not in Committee. Mr. Walker, to intervene.

Mr. Walker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has asked for this, so perhaps I may say that that Section says that notice of inquiries "may" be given and published in accordance with such general and special directions as the Minister "may" give.

Mr. Bessell: I am obliged to the hon. Member, because this is what we have wanted to know and what I asked the

Minister of State, without receiving a reply.
This means that we are talking once again of a matter of Ministerial discretion. It would be discretionary, but, if the Minister used his power of discretion and ordered an inquiry, it would not be an inquiry as set out in Clause 148, as the Minister of State tried to convey to us; it need not be a public inquiry.
Their Lordships are saying that if an inquiry is decided upon, it shall be a public inquiry, and I have tried to set out the reasons why I believe that it is imperative that if any inquiry is ordered in circumstances like this, it should be a public inquiry. I hope that the Opposition will not hesitate to divide the House on this, because there is an important matter of principle involved.

Mr. Leadbitter: As I read the Amendment, it does not deviate from the provisions of the 1919 Act. The Amendment says:
… the Minister may if he thinks fit order a public inquiry to be held …
What I cannot understand is the hon. Gentleman's argument that there must be a public inquiry.

Mr. Bessell: I should be out of order if I repeated the arguments which I have already made. I would say to the hon. Gentleman, who is always most acute in following these arguments, as he did in Committee, that if, in the discretion of the Minister, an inquiry were necessary, under the Amendment, it would have to be public—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any discourtesy, but he must not repeat his arguments.

Mr. Bessell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You are right, of course. I had already advanced that point, but the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) implied that I had not done so, but was arguing from a different premise. My premise was the argument advanced in any place.
I am certain that when the report of this debate is read, it will be clear to everyone that their Lordships were right and that we should be quite wrong to reject this. If, as the Minister of State said, this is merely a duplication—a claim


which I cannot accept—there can be no earthly reason for not accepting it, because no harm could be done in extending an already very long Bill by a few lines to provide the clarity and assurance which local authorities would gain.

Sir R. Cary: I am surprised that the Minister of State resists this reasonable and sensible Amendment. I want him to give me an assurance on a matter of mechanics. Before being made, will the draft Order be subject to prior consultation with local authorities and other operators likely to be affected? That is important. The Minister will understand why I add the words "other operators".

Mr. Heseltine: All other operators.

Sir R. Cary: Yes, all other operators. It will be appreciated that in my special circumstances, which are well known to the Minster of State, I have a responsibility in a very large area of Lancashire. I should like to extend the Amendment, but, taking it in its limited terms, there are many local authorities, close and far distant, in that area with which I have agreements. This is the lifeblood of the co-operation which exists between local authorities and other operators. I do not want that to be destroyed. I want to sustain it.
Many problems will arise which will demand some form of public investigation and I am not assured by the terms of Clause 148, which the Minister quoted, and which I feel is too much of a generalisation. I want him now in the House to be quite precise and to say that before being made a draft Order will be subject to proper consultation with the local authorities and with all other operators affected.

Mr. Swingler: Subject to your Ruling about repetition, Mr. Speaker, before the hon. Member sits down I wish to remind him that I said that the Minister is obliged to consult the local authorities about the designated area. Furthermore, we have said that we shall publish the details of the proposal to make a designation order in the "Notices and Proceedings", in the London Gazette and in the National and local Press. They will be published for all operators to be able to read them so that they will know what is happening. The Minister has that

obligation and we have promised that these will be published.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind even the Minister that it will improve the debate if we keep to the formality of the debate.

Sir R. Cary: I thank the Minister of State for that statement.
Even with its imperfections, there will be a desire when the Bill reaches the Statute Book to get the organisation in the different conurbations operating as quickly as possible. The scrutiny of a public inquiry which is given, for example, to increases in fares ought to be provided here so that many of the provisions enshrined in the Bill were open to the same investigation. If we do not do that we shall collide with consultation difficulties which will hold up the Bill far longer than anybody expects. I therefore beg the Minister to look more sympathetically at the Amendment than he has looked at it so far.

Mr. John Hynd: I wonder why we are spending so much time on this Amendment. The point made by the hon. Member for Withington (Sir R. Cary) seems to be adequately met. Clause 148 contains a blanket provision that the Minister may hold inquiries into the operation of the Bill under many Clauses of the Bill. Apparently we are being asked to write into the Bill that the Minister shall be obliged to hold public inquiries. Provision is already made for inquiries and we have had an assurance that the proceedings of those inquiries are public.
In any event, if it is said that although we have a Ministerial assurance, no such provision is made in the Bill, the simple answer is that the provision is not made in the Amendment either. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the Amendment merely says that if objections are made the Minister may, "if he thinks fit", hold a public inquiry. I do not see how the Amendment meets the point apparently being made by hon. Members opposite. If we accepted the Amendment it would not have the slightest effect except to load the Bill and to create a precedent so that hon. Members could demand similar provisions in practically every Clause of the Bill. This is wasting time, and I hope that we shall move on.

Mr. Anthony Berry: The more I hear the Minister of State explain why he objects to the words being added, the more I fail to understand him. He said that public attention will be drawn to any notices by his Ministry. Why will he not agree to accept the word "public"? I thought that after five months in the Standing Committee I was no longer capable of being surprised by what the Minister says.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Transport Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed. —[Mr. Marsh.]

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BILL

Question again proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Berry: I just said how surprised I was. I have been looking at the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House of Lords to see why the Minister in another place declined to accept the Amendment. There seemed to be only two arguments advanced. First, he said that there might be a frivolous objector who refused to withdraw an objection. That seemed a lame excuse for not accepting the Amendment. Secondly, hon. Members will see that Lord Hughes said,
 … he will be well aware from his own vast experience that in practice ' inquiries' means public inquiries although theoretically there could be private inquiries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT House of Lords, 7th October, 1968; Vol. 296, c 810.]
That is the whole basis of our argument—that inquiries could be private inquiries. The Minister says that he believes in public inquiries. Why, then, does he not accept the word "public" in the Amendment, accept the Amendment and end the debate? It is an important Amendment to which he should agree.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: In the light of this debate, the Minister should withdraw his objection to the Lords Amend-

ment. He said that there was no need for the Amendment because the point was covered by Clause 148. in the midst of his speech the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) intervened and the Minister said that all such inquiries would be public. The impression we were given was that Clause 148 would automatically result in any inquiry which the Minister decided to hold being a public inquiry.
At that point the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) said that if that were the case, then he would agree that we should dispense with the Lords Amendment. He said that that depended on whether or not the 1919 Act had resulted in all such inquiries being public. On further examination, my hon. Friends proved that the 1919 Act did not mean that such inquiries were automatically public.
The Minister based his objection to the Lords Amendment on the grounds that Clause 148 met all the points contained in the Amendment. This debate has shown clearly that that Clause does not do any such thing. After an intricate debate, their Lordships decided—and my hon. Friends, having since investigated the matter, have established beyond doubt that their Lordships were right— that it is necessary for this part of the Bill to make it clear that if the Minister decides that an inquiry should be held, it should be a public one.
There are good reasons why inquiries of this type should be public. The Amendment does not say that the Minister must order an inquiry. The matter is still left to his discretion and we are anxious that frivolous objections should not result in inquiries being held. However, having decided that an inquiry should, in the public interest, be held, it should be a public one. As the Minister's whole argument is based on the fact that Clause 148 meets the terms of the Lords Amendment in full, and since my hon. Friends have proved that this argument does not hold water, he should now withdraw his objection to their Lordships' recommendation.

Mr. Swingler: I have little to add to what I said earlier. I cannot understand the logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). And it is apparent that hon. Gentlemen opposite are prepared to give


the Minister total discretion in deciding whether or not to order inquiries. I mentioned Clause 148 because it relates to this and other appropriate provisions in the Bill.
Although willing to give the Minister total discretion in this matter, hon. Gentlemen opposite go on to say that if he decides to hold an inquiry, it must be public. This is an extraordinary demand. I appreciate, of course, that they are really arguing that the Minister should be obliged, in certain circumstances, to order inquiries and that that is the real point of their case. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Since the matters we are considering involve great public issues, it is obvious that any inquiries that are ordered would be public ones. However, there might be circumstances, arising from various parts of the Bill, when the Minister might order inquiries which he considers should not be public.
Why has this part of the Bill been singled out for an argument when, as I said, Clause 148 applies to many Parts of the Bill? I have referred to what has been the law since 1919. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have not changed it since then. They have not said that when the Minister orders inquiries they must be public ones. As this has been the law for a long time, we are merely continuing it by Clause 148. Why do hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to single out this one Part or' the Bill and say, "There must be a special provision for inquiries ordered in connection with this Part of the Bill"? We see no reason why that should be so. It could only have the effect of creating an anomalous situation in relation to other Parts of the Bill. If this were not the case their Lordships would have picked on various other parts of the Bill and would have repeated this rigmarole. Clause 148 provides adequately for the exercise of the Minister's discretion to order inquiries, which on issues of this kind would obviously be public, as they traditionally have been. The provision covers other Parts of the Bill and the Amendment would, therefore, be superfluous.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have never before heard a Minister so convincingly destroy his own case. The Minister of State said that it was obvious that if an inquiry was ordered under this part of the Bill, it would be a public one. If that were so, why would their Lordships have recom-

mended an Amendment saying that all such inquiries should be public? Will the Minister go into the Lobby to vote down a Lords Amendment giving him discretion to hold a public inquiry under this part of the Bill? If so, every local authority and operator who is anxious to have a public inquiry will know exactly why the Government are taking this step, and they will be appropriately suspicious.
Under the Bill as worded, taking Clause 148 into account, there is power for the Minister to have an inquiry in public or in private. This part of the Bill is of fundamental importance to local authorities and operators. It is the one part of the Bill for which their Lordships decided inquiries should be public. The Minister of State argued a few minutes ago that if there were an inquiry under the Clause it should be a public inquiry, yet in a minute or two he will vote to reject that provision. He is in a most devastating position. All that the Amendment would do would be to give the Minister the discretion.
There is an importance in this provision in that if, for example, in the Manchester area a large number of major local authorities objected strongly and clamoured for a public inquiry and the Minister decided to refuse that clamour although such a provision was in the Measure, the Minister concerned would quite rightly incur very real hostility in that area. There is, therefore, an importance for this House at least to put in the protection that the Minister has to argue with the public and the objectors against not having a public inquiry when it is clearly stated in the Clause that he has the power to order one. That is why their Lordships, in my view absolutely rightly, made this Amendment.
What objection can the Minister have to accepting the Amendment? If he says that any inquiry is to be public in any case, why not accept it? He has only to say that he will and the debate ends, and the whole thing goes through. What reason has he for objecting to the Amendment? The power is to have either a public or a private inquiry. He states that under the Clause he will have a public inquiry, and if he refuses an Amendment which supports his own very words the House of Commons and the country will have every ground for being suspicious.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 208.

Division No. 294.]
AYES
[10.11 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackie, John


Albu, Austen
Ford, Ben
Mackintosh, John P.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Forrester, John
Maclennan, Robert


Alldritt, Walter
Fowler, Gerry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Anderson, Donald
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Archer, Peter
Freeson, Reginald
MacPherson, Malcolm


Armstrong, Ernest
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Ashley, Jack
Gardner, Tony
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Garrett, W. E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Ginsburg, David
Manuel, Archie


Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Mapp, Charles


Barnes, Michael
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marks, Kenneth


Baxter, William
Gourlay, Harry
Marquand, David


Beaney, Alan
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bence, Cyril
Gregory, Arnold
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mayhew, Christopher


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mendelson, J. J.


Bidwell, Sydney

Millan, Bruce


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Lianelly)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Blackburn, F.
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Moonman, Eric


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Booth, Albert
Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Boston, Terence
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Moyle, Roland


Boyden, James
Hattersley, Roy
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hazell, Bert
Neal, Harold


Bradley, Tom
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Newens, Stan


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Gordon


Brooks, Edwin
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Ogden, Eric


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hilton, W. S.
O'Malley, Brian


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Oram, Albert E.


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hooley, Frank
Orbach, Maurice


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Buchan, Norman
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oswald, Thomas


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howie, W.
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hoy, James Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Paget, R. T.


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam
Park, Trevor


Coe, Denis
Hynd, John
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pavitt, Laurence


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Peart, Rt. Hn, Fred


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, T, Alec (Rhondda, West)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Judd, Frank
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kelley, Richard
Rankin, John


Davies, Harold (Leek)

Rees, Merlyn


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kenyon, Clifford
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dell, Edmund
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Robinson,Rt.Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Dewar, Donald
Lawson, George
Robinson, W. O. J. (Wath'stow,E.)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Leadbitter, Ted
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dickens, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dobson, Ray
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Doig, Peter
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Shaw, Arnold (IIford, S.)


Dunn, James A.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Sheldon, Robert


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton.N.E.)


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius


Ellis, John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Slater, Joseph


Ennals, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Small, William


Ensor, David
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McBride, Neil
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
MacColl, James
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
MacDermot, Niall
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Faulds, Andrew
Macdonald, A. H.
Swain, Thomas


Fernyhough, E.
McGulre, Michael
Swingler, Stephen


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Symonds, J. B.


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Taverne, Dick




Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Wellbeloved, James
Winnick, David


Thornton, Ernest
Whitaker, Ben
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Tinn, James,
Wilkins, W. A.
Woof, Robert


Urwin, T. W.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wyatt, Woodrow


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Yates, Victor


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)



Watkins, David (Consett)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Mr. John McCann and


Weitzman, David
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gower, Raymond
Nott, John


Allason, dames (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Onslow, Cranley


Astor, John
Grieve, Percy
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Awdry, Daniel
Gurden, Harold
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Balniel. Lord
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian


Bell, Ronald
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Peyton, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pink, R. Bonner


Bessell, Peter
Hastings, Stephen
Pounder, Rafton


Biffen, John
Hawkins, Paul
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hay, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Black, Sir Cyril
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Prior, J. M. L.


Blaker, Peter
Heseltine, Michael
Pym, Francis


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Higgins, Terence L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hill, J. E. B.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hooson, Emlyn
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Braine, Bernard
Hordern, Peter
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brinton, Sir Tatton

Ridsdale, Julian


Bromley-Davenport.Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Hornby, Richard
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Bryan, Paul
Hunt, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Royle, Anthony


Bullus, Sir Eric
Iremonger, T. L.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Burden, F. A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott, Nicholas


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Silvester, Frederick


Carlisle, Mark
Jopling, Michael
Sinclair, Sir George


Cary, Sir Robert
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Channon, H. P. G.
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kimball, Marcus
Speed, Keith


Clegg, Walter
Kitson, Timothy
Stainton, Keith


Cooke, Robert
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lambton, Viscount
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cordle, John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Tapsell, Peter


Corfield, F. V.
Lane, David
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Teeling, Sir William


Crouch, David
Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Temple, John M.


Crowder, F. P.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dalkeith, Earl of
Longden, Gilbert
Tilney, John


Dance, James
Loveys, W. H.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshlre,W.)
Lubbock, Eric
van Straubenzee, W. R.


d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
MacArthur, Ian
Waddington, David


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Doughty, Charles
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Eden, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maginnis, John E.
Wall, Patrick


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Walters, Dennis


Errington, Sir Erie
Marten, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene


Eyre, Reginald
Maude, Angus
Webster, David


Fair, John
Mawby, Ray
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fisher, Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
May don, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Fortescue, Tim
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Foster, Sir John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(S'fford &amp; Stone)
Miscampbell, Norman
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Monro, Hector
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gibson-Watt, David
Montgomery, Fergus
Woodnutt, Mark


Giles, Rear-A dm. Morgan
More, Jasper
Wright, Esmond


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wylie, N. R.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Younger, Hn. George


Glyn, Sir Richard
Murton, Oscar



Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Goodhart, Philip
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Goodhew, Victor
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 37: In page 16, line 30, leave out paragraph (xi).

Read a Second time.

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment is designed simply to deprive the Executive of the right to sell petrol, spare parts, and so on, and provide car servicing facilities, at its car parks. [Interruption.] I appreciate that hon. Members opposite have strong feelings on anything like this. One of the main fears that prompts those feelings is that the provision would lead to the possibility of subsidised trading or unsound investment decisions. There is very little in that fear. The Executive will have a duty to break even year by year, and it will seek to make a profit from such services to offset the inevitable losses on public transport services which are socially necessary but unremunerative.
On the one hand, the Executive has a legal obligation to break even year by year, and on the other it has a strong incentive to use what profit-making services it can to produce a commercial profit to offset to some extent the costs of unremunerative services which are socially necessary. If this were not of itself a sufficient safeguard, Clause 16(4) gives power to the Minister to intervene in any case where it may be plain that the Executive is indulging in unfair trading activities. I am also introducing an Amendment to which will extend the obligation laid down in Lords Amendment No. 176 to act in a commercial manner. The economic pressures on the Executive not to run such services at a loss, which I think is something private entrepreneurs fear most in this field, are very strong, and provision is built into the Bill to enable the Minister to give Ministerial directives and intervene if necessary.
The only other question is whether these powers are necessary to the Executive. I think that they are very necessary, because car parks, and the facilities which go with them, are an essential part of a good public transport system. When the centres of our cities become heavily congested, I want to see more and more people leaving their cars in car parks on the peripheries before

reaching the congested city centres. We want to see more and more commuters and shoppers making the last part of their journey by train or bus, even if they make the first part of it by car. It would be generally accepted on both sides of the House that, in order to be able to achieve that, it is essential to enable the Executive to provide facilities for people to park their cars. If one provides the car parks, a very heavy added incentive to use them is the provision of the facilities which go with them.
In short, what we seek to do is to encourage a good habit in the motorist, with car parks of this kind made attractive to him, in places where he will be able to buy his petrol and get his car serviced during the day, and that he should make the last part of his journey by public transport. This seems to me highly desirable on every ground. These are facilities which commercial operators regularly accept as normal and essential to make their car parks attractive. Given the protection that I have spelled out, which is already in the Bill, and given the economic pressures on the Executives to make sure they act commercially, I can see no reason for the fears which have been expressed and which prompt the Amendment, nor can I see any argument against a provision which is both economically sound and highly desirable.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I hope the House will not disagree with the Lords in this Amendment. I must be frank: this is an Amendment we ourselves discussed during our deliberations on the Bill, and this is the last chance the House has to look at the whole question of the activities or organisations set up to deal with passenger transport in the conurbations. We are concerned, and have been concerned throughout, that by giving to the passenger transport executives wide powers under Clause 10 of the Bill we shall simply divert them from the main purpose for which they are to exist. I would have thought there were few areas where they would be more likely to be so diverted than that of running, in competition with the private sector, what, I am sure, they will all hope at the beginning will be commercial garages.
I appreciate that it is always the intention of anyone arguing in favour of


powers of this sort that such public organisations going into a sector where profits have been made should go into competition so that, hey presto, the profits go to the public sector, but one has only to see that since the war there has been a net loss to the taxpayer of £1,000 million to perceive that this sort of attitude hardly rings true. Bearing in mind the promises hon. Members opposite have always given whenever they have sought power of this sort, and, perhaps more important, bearing in mind the disastrous results which have invariably flowed from those promises, I hope the House will see fit to resist the temptation to give these organisations opportunity to sell petrol, spare parts, and various other things of the sort.
Let not the Minister confuse the House with the suggestion that this has got something to do with the provision of car parks. No one so far as I am aware, has ever said that the passenger transport executives should not ever pro vide car parks. The Minister asked, "What about the facilities?" I am not going to run away from that, but he was talking about the provision of car parks under Clause 10(1)(xi) and we are not talking about the provision of car parks —and as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) says, the Minister I am sure, is fully aware that we are not talking about car parks. That power to provide car parks is given to the executives under another part of Clause 10 and we do not wish to dispute it. We are not even trying to stop the provision of facilities at car parks. Far from it.
We moved an Amendment when we were in Committee on the Bill to make it possible to provide these facilities by offering the right to provide the facilities by public tender. In other words, we wanted to let the public sector have the right. We wanted to bring in the expertise of people already providing garages with certain skills and with risk capital which can ill be spared in the great concept of the passenger transport authorities. It is difficult for the public sector to provide these facilities. There could have been no objection to the provision of facilities at the car parks. Much more important, perhaps, under our Amendment, the public would not have been put

at risk, and it was the public we were seeking to protect.
There is an objection which has worried me ever since I first looked at the Bill. Are the transport executives going to provide facilities at garages under this subsection? It will be possible for them then to be involved in retailing cars themselves. This, though not directly expressed in the Bill, is not very difficult to contrive, as one sees when one realises that the executives have the right to transfer any of their land to anybody with whom they want to go into partner ship. They can go into partnership with any of the other nationalised boards, and the national bus company will, of course, be such a natural partner. So what I suspect will happen is that there will be transport executive car parks operated by the transport executives in partnership with the national bus company using land which will have been filched from the ratepayers of the various conurbations at low cost and no compensation. And those people are supposed to be operating in competition with the private sector.
This is in no way intended in this legislation, but it is perfectly possible as the legislation stands. Only by removing this small subsection can the private sector be protected from what will be totally unfair competition. The wording in the Bill gives some semblance of competition, but the essence of it is that the value of the assets which are introduced into the business will be used to compete with the private sector. The capital assets, the land on which the activities will be conducted, have been removed from the municipality at no cost, have been introduced into the books of the Executive at no cost and have been transferred to the National Bus Company at no cost. It is perfectly justifiable for the National Bus Company to say that it is not expected to earn a return on the value of the land. How then can one say what is commercial behaviour in those circumstances? This is why we have always regarded this sort of ancillary activitity of the Transport Executive with the gravest suspicion.
There is a major job to be done; that I do not dispute. That the wrong body is to do it I certainly would argue. The job does not consist of providing


restaurant cars, greasing facilities, petrol facilities, bookstalls and a whole range of ancillary activities which are easy to get involved in and even easier to lose a lot of money in.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I have no wish to rehearse the arguments on this subject which have been heard on many occasions, although I adhere more closely to the arguments on this side than on the other side.
I have listened to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman very carefully, and in many ways they are valid. We need car parks, and car parks have to be such that people are willing and encouraged to use them. Anthing which can be done in that way is a good thing.
There is a parallel in the motorway system, which has a series of service stations, and the Government have taken great care to keep out of service stations. When I raised this matter earlier with the Minister of State he gave me many reasons why it was a good thing for the motorway service stations to remain in private hands. If that is a good thing—and perhaps it is—it would also be a good thing for these facilities to remain in private hands. Certainly have these provisions, but why not allow them to be operated by concessionaires, as is done with the motorways?
One appreciates that it is desirable to have facilities of this kind for car park users, but there is a clear inducement for other people to use them in addition to the car park users. It may be that the volume of trade coming from other sources might exceed the car park trade and therefore almost defeat the object.
With the motorway service stations precautions are taken and enforced to ensure that they are used only by motorway users. The service roads are one-way roads on which only service vehicles are allowed. If one applied the Minister's proposals for car parks to the motorways, private operators would be turned off the motorways and these facilities would be operated as State concerns, and the public would be allowed to use the service roads. There is inconsistency here.

Mr. Berry: Although the Minister appears to be speaking so convincingly,

when one analyses his words one realises how few facts are behind them. I was not surprised to hear him giving the impression that if we agreed to the Lords Amendment there would be no question of these facilities being possible outside towns. People drive in and park and drive out later. He gave the impression that, if we agree with their Lordships, this wonderful idea falls to the ground. But that is nonsense, and I am sure that the Minister knows it.
We are discussing the way in which it should be done. We do not believe that it is a job to be done by the P.T.E.s. We agree that the facilities should be provided, but the P.T.E.s are not the people to do it.
I was looking at the debate in the other place, and I see that the Govern ment spokesman, Lord Bowles, attempted to justify the argument on the ground that private enterprise is worried by inefficient competition from the P.T.E.s in running garages and serving petrol. However, that is not the argument. Private enterprise is concerned because, if the P.T.E.s are inefficient in running garages and serving petrol, it is the taxpayers and ratepayers who will have to provide the money. They are not used to doing that. If private enterprise goes wrong, it loses its own money.
I would draw attention to another specific point which was raised in the Lords and to which I should like an answer from the Government. Will the people running these subsidiary services have to pay S.E.T.?
In summary, I would say to the Minister that I support his general idea, but I condemn the way in which he is setting about it.

Mr. Marsh: I am surprised that the debate has engendered so much heat. It seems to be a simple and sensible proposition.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) drew a comparison between what is proposed here and the provision of motorway facilities. I think that there is a fundamental difference. The facilities proposed in the Bill are wanted because we wish the Executive to use them not purely as a commercial exercise on the side but as part of their overall transport


policy. We want deliberately to attract motorists into these parks. We want them to leave their cars there and travel by public transport. And we all know that motorists are attracted by other facilities which enable them to leave their cars and have them serviced, and so on.
Within the specific provision, there is nothing to prevent the P.T.E.s reaching agreements with private operators to provide the facilities for them, but there is no reason why they should be barred from doing the job themselves if they think that they can do it and provided that they are obliged to make a profit. To make it impossible for them to do the job themselves would place them in the hands of private companies. On the other hand, if they want to arrange for private companies to do it, they can, and competition will be guaranteed either way.
I was asked about S.E.T. The answer is that the Executives will be treated no differently from anyone else.
Here we have an ordinary commercial activity which is also essential to the operation of the policy. The only matter which causes any division is the incredible doctrinal blindness which regards any attempt by any public body to carry out any activity which might make a profit as something to be resisted. On this as on every other issue, hon. Gentlemen opposite complain bitterly every time a nationalised industry does not make a profit, and object bitterly to it ever entering into profit-making activities.
10.45 p.m.
Therefore, unless hon. Gentlemen opposite—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: What about S.E.T.?

Mr. Marsh: I have already mentioned this point. The P.T.E.s will be treated

in the same way as everybody else. That should remove the last remaining doubt from the hon. Gentleman's mind. But if the Opposition are unwise enough to press this matter to a division, the hon. Gentleman's company will be welcomed in our Lobby.

Mr. Peter Walker: Having listened to that non-doctrinal speech from the Minister, may I say that we are dissatisfied with his reply. The right hon. Gentleman has not commented on the considerable advantage that these Executives can enjoy from the value of the assets that they have to service. This is a fundamental reason why it would be unfair and unreasonable to competing services for them to operate their own petrol stations and other facilities.
The Minister gave the impression that there would only be openings for such facilities on the outskirts of conurbations. If the right hon. Gentleman examines Clause 10(10) he will see that they can open these facilities wherever they operate a service, and a great deal of their services are operated at the centres of cities. Therefore, they may well decide, particularly with a Socialist-dominated Passenger Transport Authority, to open such facilities in city centres with all the advantages of having obtained their assets at well under market value. This would be extending public ownership by unfair competition, which is the most dishonourable way of obtaining public ownership.
Therefore, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment: —

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 204.

Division No. 295.]
AYES
[10.45 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchan, Norman


Albu, Austen
Bishop, E. S.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blackburn, F.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Alldritt, Walter
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Anderson, Donald
Booth, Albert
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Archer, Peter
Boston, Terence
Cant, R. B.


Armstrong, Ernest
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Carmichael, Neil


Ashley, Jack
Boyden, James
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Coe, Denis


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bradley, Tom
Coleman, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Concannon, J. D.


Barnes, Michael
Brooks, Edwin
Conlan, Bernard


Beaney, Alan
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Bence, Cyril
Brown,Bob(N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Crawshaw, Richard


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice




Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Paget, R. T.


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Park, Trevor


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dell, Edmund
Judd, Frank
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dempsey, James
Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurence


Dewar, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dickens, James
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Pentland, Norman


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Doig, Peter
Lawson, George
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Probert, Arthur


Eadie, Alex
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rankin, John


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rees, Merlyn


Ellis, John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Ennals, David
Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ensor, David
Lomas, Kenneth
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Loughlin, Charles
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)



Faulds, Andrew
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCann, John
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
MacColl, James



Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacDermot, Niall
Sheldon Robert


Ford, Ben

Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Forrester, John
Macdonald, A. H.
Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton,N.E.)


Fowler, Gerry
McGuire, Michael
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Silverman, Julius


Freeson, Reginald
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Slater, Joseph


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackie, John
Small, William


Gardner, Tony
Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie


Garrett, W. E.
Maclennan, Robert
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Ginsburg, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Gourlay, Harry
MacPherson, Malcolm
Swain, Thomas


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Swingler, Stephen


Gregory, Arnold
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Taverne, Dick


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Manuel, Archie
Thornton, Ernest


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mapp, Charles
Tinn, James


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marks, Kenneth
Urwin, T. W.


Hamling, William
Marquand, David
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Harper, Joseph
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Watkins David (Consett)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mayhew, Christopher
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hazell, Bert
Mendelson, J. J.
Weitzman, David


Healey, Rt. Hn. Edward
Millan, Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Heffer, Eric S.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Moonman, Eric
Whitaker, Ben


Hilton, W. S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hooley, Frank
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Neal, Harold
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Howie, W.
Newens, Stan
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hoy, James
Oakes, Gordon
Winnick, David


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
O'Malley, Brian
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oram, Albert E.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice
Yates, Victor


Hynd, John
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Neil McBride and


Janner, Sir Barnett
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Mr. Ernest Perry.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bessell, Peter
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Biffen, John
Bryan, Paul


Astor, John
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Black, Sir Cyril
Bullus, Sir Eric


Awdry, Daniel
Blaker, Peter
Burden, F. A.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bossom, Sir dive
Campbell Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Balniel, Lord
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Carlisle, Mark


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Cary, Sir Robert


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Braine, Bernard
Channon, H. P. G.


Bell, Ronald
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Chichester-Clark, R.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Clegg, Walter







Cooke, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, J. M. L.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Francis


Cordle, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Corfield, F. V.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn, Sir David


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jopling, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Crouch, David
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Crowder, F. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian


Dalkeith Earl of
Kimball, Marcus
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dance, James
Kitson, Timothy
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lambton, Viscount
Royle, Anthony


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Deedes, Rt. Hn. w. F. (Ashford)
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Doughty, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharpies, Richard


Eden, Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Elliot, capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Silvester, Frederick


Errington, Sir Eric
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Sinclair, Sir George


Farr, John
Longden, Gilbert
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fisher, Nigel
Loveys, W. H.
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lubbock, Eric
Speed, Keith


Fortescue, Tim
MacArthur, Ian
Stainton, Keith


Foster, Sir John

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Tapsell, Peter


Gibson-Watt, David
Maddan, Martin
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest



Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Marten, Neil
Teeling, Sir William


Glyn, Sir Richard
Maude, Angus
Temple, John M.


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mawby, Ray
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Goodhart, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Goodhew, Victor
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Tilney, John


Gower, Raymond
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Grant, Anthony
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Miscampbell, Norman
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector



Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus
Waddington, David


Hall, John (Wycombe)
More, Jasper
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Murton, Oscar
Wall, Patrick


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neave, Airey
Walters, Dennis


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Ward, Dame Irens


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
W either ill, Bernard


Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John
Webster, David


Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hay, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Osborn. John (Hallam)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Heseltine, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Hill, J. E. B.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian
Wright, Esmond


Hooson, Emlyn
Peyton, John
Wylie, M. R.


Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner
Younger, Hn. George


Hornby, Richard
Pounder, Rafton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howell, David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Hunt, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.—[One with Special Entry.]

Clause 36

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO RUN CONTRACT CARRIAGE

Lords Amendment No. 48: In page 55, line 20, leave out" and places outside."

Read a Second time.

11.0 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that it was the intention to discuss with this Amendment Amendment No. 49, in page 55, line 24, leave out from "within" to "their" in line 25, Amendment No. 50, in page 55, line 30, leave out "cease" and insert "continue", Amendment No. 51, in page 55, line 30, at end insert "except insofar as they are affected by section 31 of this Act ", Amendment No. 52, in page 55, line 41, leave out "to and from ", and Amendment No. 53, in page 56, line 9, leave out "to and from". Would that be for the convenience of the House?

Mr. Brown: Yes. Clause 36 is to provide municipal transport authorities with general contract carriage powers, and


this was introduced by the Government on Report stage in this House in place of a back-bench Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. A. Manuel) in Committee.
The House of Lords has not interfered with subsection (1), which provides the powers wholly within the authority's district; it has only removed the power to run outside the district.
The reasons which the Opposition gave for these Amendments in the Lords Committee were that municipal competition in the contract field would have an adverse effect on the private sector, especially on smaller operators; that private operators are more efficient than municipalities in this field; that municipal undertakings would run contract carriages at a loss, charging the deficit to the rates, so as to attract business from private firms; and that in order to man contract carriages municipal undertakings would draw off drivers from regular stage buses.
The Opposition Amendments mean that local authorities could undertake no contract carriage operation whatever outside their district, without seeking local act power, and the Government see no case at all for this limitation. It is considered reasonable that local authorities should now be able to engage in this sort of operation in the same way as non-municipal operators. It is perhaps surprising that either side of the House should question this reasonable extension of a trading activity which is already being carried on, and by responsible elected local authorities.
However, the Government recognised that where this trading activity is extended outside the local authority's district, it would be reasonable to provide the safeguards included in the Clause. In the first place, the powers to operate to and from the district—or in a limited way wholly outside it—cannot be assumed until the Minister is satisfied, by the drill provided in subsections (3) and (4), as to the local authority's general policy of co-operation with its neighbouring operators. Secondly, once the powers are assumed, the provisions in subsection (5) secure against unfair undercutting by local authorities in their contract carriage charges, inside as well as outside their district.
Contract carriage operations are profitable because the operator is able to ensure, before undertaking to provide a service, that the revenue will cover his costs and yield a reasonable profit, unlike the ordinary stage and express services which—under the terms of their road service licences—must be operated to fixed timetables regardless of the amount of passenger traffic at any particular time. For this reason, the field is a highly competitive one. But there is no reason why it should not be a freely competitive one, on fair terms.
Subsection (5) secures against unfair undercutting by local authorities. If, as the Opposition maintain, the private bus operators are more efficient in this field than the local authority undertakings, then they should have nothing to fear from municipal competition.
With regard to the point that a municipal undertaking's stage services might suffer because of drivers being withdrawn to man contract carriages, surely the Opposition are overlooking that, because stage services have to be run according to prescribed timetables, the traffic commissioners are able to investigate any reason for failure to provide a proper service, and the local authority could quickly be taken to task on this score.
Much private party work is, in any case, run at off-peak periods, in evening or weekend excursions. The municipal undertakings have stressed that what they want is the opportunity to use the vehicles and staff who are otherwise idle at off-peak periods, and that if they can balance their stage operations with a fair share of more remunerative work, that will be for the benefit of their undertakings, and I would stress for the benefit of their passengers as a whole.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Once again, I hope that these Amendments will not be rejected. This principle was introduced very late on Report, before any proper consultation with the interested parties. What little consultation there had been provoked a great deal of discouragement for the Ministry and I am surprised that they persisted in the Amendments. However, I am delighted that their Lordships have given us one more chance not to persist along these lines.
There is probably a doctrinal difference between us here. I and many other hon.


Members just do not believe that local authorities should have the opportunity to run excursion tours or contract carriage services for any wide range of activities which suits them. There are many activities suited to the public domain and many others which are best left outside it. Excursion tours overseas or anywhere in this country should not be encouraged in the public sector. I am aware of no evidence of a demand for extra supplies of these services in the public sector.
This part of the holiday and travel industry is having some difficulties at the moment, yet it is suggested that the municipal authorities should invade this field with the safeguards outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary. I know of no reason why this should happen, and I noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary gave no hope of extra profits along the lines described in an earlier debate. I suspect that there will be none. As he said, this is a competitive business. I suspect that the extra buses will certainly be used, and that extra wages paid, but that the result will be losses and not a surplus. This should not be encouraged, particularly at this moment in the economic situation.
The alarming thing about this is the complete misunderstanding by the Ministry of the industry for which they were legislating. Nothing is more revealing than the provision that, before giving permission to a local authority to conduct this sort of exercise, the Minister must get from it a statement showing how it has tried to co-ordinate the existing activities of those already providing these services. I find it extraordinary that, in a competitive area, with small people seeking all the business they can get, it should be suggested that the local authorities should try to parcel out the business between themselves and the private sector before submitting a statement seeking the Minister's permission. Yet this is written into the legislation. No one who understood this business could have written this legislation.
What it amounts to is that, having had the original idea of this extension of the public sector submitted by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) this "phoney" safeguard was built into the legislation to satisfy the

trade interests, but it is a nonsense in any commercial behaviour, a fact of which the industry is, I am sure, well aware.
The Parliamentary Secretary made play with the fact that there are commercial safeguards, that statements must be produced to show how the local authorities are doing out of this sort of exercise, but there could be a delay of 23 months before a financial statement is prepared by the local authorities to show the Minister whether or not they are making a profit.
If local authorities have been undercutting charges in those 23 months and if they have been able to attract a great deal of business by behaving in an uncommercial way throughout that period, by that time it will be too late for the private sector, who will have lost all that business and who cannot be expected to carry that loss over the 23 months and then to start in business again. Although safeguards are written into legislation from the point of view of commercial people involved, they are not worth having.
I ask that we should resist any unnecessary extension of monopoly trading. Not one argument has been produced to show that there is a market for the municipalities to trade at a profit. There is reason to fear that they would make a loss. I have heard no argument why the House should not agree with their Lordships in this matter.

Mr. Manuel: The reason I moved an Amendment in Committee in connection with contract carriage operations was that I received representations from the Municipal Passenger Transport Authorities' Association. Anyone who examines the present position of contract carriage operations will agree that it is illogical. Some of our major local authorities which run transport undertakings have powers to enable them to conduct these operations within their own local authority areas. Others have powers which allow them to exceed that somewhat on a certain mileage basis. Others have much wider powers. Surely all will agree that there should be uniformity in the freedom allowed local authorities for contract carriage operations.
I am constantly amazed at the reception which this suggestion receives from


hon. Members opposite. When a public undertaking seeks to increase fares, there is an outcry from hon. Members opposite who raise a host of objections. But do they appreciate that the major bus undertakings, especially in the large conurbations, need a large number of buses operating at peak periods and that, outside the peak periods, many hundreds of these buses are in the garages not turning a wheel? This provision would allow an authority to do other types of contract carriage operation, which means hiring buses for football matches, dances and other activities.
Why should local authorities not have that freedom. In many instances, where they made a success of contract carriage operations, would not that avoid an increase in fares? That is one of the salient points made by the Municipal Passenger Transport Authorities Association. They wrote to me yesterday asking me to try to rescue them from the situation which their Lordships had created by turning down the very sensible Amendment which was accepted in Committee.
I hope that the House will be sensible and agree that local authorities should be treated equally throughout the country.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Bob Brown: I do not want to detain the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member wishes to speak again he needs the leave of the House.

Mr. Brown: May I have the leave of the House to reply?
It is clear that there was some confusion in earlier debates about what contract carriage operation is, and the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) showed this confusion again in this debate, because he said that local authorities should not embark on running excursions. Contract carriage operation is where a vehicle is hired as a whole and no fares are charged to passengers—for example, a vehicle is hired by a local education authority to carry school children—or is used for private party work on which separate fares are charged but whose journeys are not advertised, and whose passengers are not carried regularly. It does not cover public excursions and tours. These are subject to licensing by the traffic commissioners, whether provided by municipal or non-municipal operators.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 198.

Division No. 296.]
AYES
[11.14 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Albu, Austen
Buchan, Norman
Eadie, Alex


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Alldritt, Walter
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ellis, John


Anderson, Donald
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Ennals, David


Archer, Peter
Cant, R. B.
Ensor, David


Armstrong, Ernest
Carmichael, Nell
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Ashley, Jack
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Coe, Denis
Faulds, Andrew


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Coleman, Donald
Fernyhough, E.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Concannon, J. D.
Finch, Harold


Barnes, Michael
Conlan, Bernard
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Baxter, William
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Beaney, Alan
Crawshaw, Richard
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Bence, Cyril
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Ford, Ben


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Forrester, John


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Fowler, Gerry


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Freeson, Reginald


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gardner, Tony


Booth, Albert
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Garrett, W. E.


Boston, Terence
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Ginsburg, David


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dell, Edmund
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Boyden, James
Dempsey, James
Gourlay, Harry


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dewar, Donald
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Bradley, Tom
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Gregory, Arnold


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dickens, James
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Brooks, Edwin
Dobson, Ray
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Doig, Peter
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dunn, James A.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brown,Bob(N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hamling, William




Harper, Joseph
McGuire, Michael
Probert, Arthur


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rees, Merlyn


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Hazell, Bert
Mackie, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mackintosh, John P.
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Heffer, Eric S.
Maclennan, Robert
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Milton, W. S.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Hooley, Frank
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Sheldon, Robert


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Manuel, Archie
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Howie, W.
Mapp, Charles
Silverman, Julius


Hoy, James
Marks, Kenneth
Slater, Joseph


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Marquand, David
Small, William


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Spriggs, Leslie


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Hunter, Adam
Mayhew, Christopher
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Hynd, John
Mendelson, J. J.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Millan, Bruce
Swain, Thomas


Janner, Sir Barnett
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Swingler, Stephen


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Moonman, Eric
Taverne, Dick


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thornton, Ernest


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Moyle, Roland
Urwin, T. W.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Neal, Harold
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Judd, Frank
Newens, Stan
Watkins, David (Consett)


Kelley, Richard
Oakes, Gordon
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Kenyon, Clifford
Ogden, Eric
Weitzman, David


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
O'Malley, Brian
Wellbeloved, James


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Oram, Albert E.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Orbach, Maurice
Whitaker, Ben


Lawson, George
Orme, Stanley
Whitlock, William


Leadbitter, Ted
Oswald, Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lestor, Miss Joan
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Paget, R. T.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Palmer, Arthur
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Lipton, Marcus
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lomas Kenneth
Park, Trevor
Winnick, David


Loughlin, Charles
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Woof, Robert


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Pavitt, Laurence
Wyatt, Woodrow


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Yates, Victor


McBride, Neil
Pentland, Norman



McCann, John
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacColl, James
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Mr. Ernest Perry and


MacDermot, Niall
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.


Macdonald, A. H.
Price, William (Rugby)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Carlisle, Mark
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Astor, John
Channon, H. P. G.
Gibson-Watt, David


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan


Awdry, Daniel
Clegg, Walter
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Cooke, Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Glyn, Sir Richard


Balniel, Lord
Cordle, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Corfield, F. V.
Goodhart, Philip


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Costain, A. P.
Goodhew, Victor


Bell, Ronald
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gower, Raymond


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Crouch, David
Grant, Anthony


Bessell Peter
Crowder, F. P.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Biffen, John




Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grieve, Percy


Black, Sir Cyril
Dance, James
Gurden, Harold


Blaker, peter
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, w.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hall Davies, A. G. F.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Boyle-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Doughty, Charles
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Braine, Bernard
Eden, Sir John
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hastings, Stephen


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hawkins, Paul


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Farr, John
Hay, John


Bryan, Paul
Fisher, Nigel
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Burden, F. A.
Fortescue, Tim
Heseltine, Michael


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Foster, Sir John
Higgins, Terence L.




Hill, J. E. B.
Montgomery, Fergus
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Holland, Philip
More, Jasper
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Hooson, Emlyn
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Speed, Keith


Hordern, Peter
Murton, Oscar
Stainton, Keith


Hornby, Richard
Neave, Airey
Stoddart-Scott Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hunt, John
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nott, John
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Iremonger, T. L.
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Teeling, Sir William


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Temple, John M.


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Jopling, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Tilney, John


Kershaw, Anthony
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Kimball, Marcus
Percival, Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Peyton, John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Lambton, Viscount
Pink, R. Bonner
Waddington, David


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pounder, Rafton
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Lane, David
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Legge-Bourke, Sir Hairy
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wall, Patrick


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Prior, J. M. L.
Walters, Dennis


Longden, Gilbert
Pym, Francis
Ward, Dame Irene


Loveys, W. H.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Weatherill, Bernard


Lubbock, Eric
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Webster, David


MacArthur, Ian
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Maddan, Martin
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Maginnis, John E.
Ridsdale, Julian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Marples, Rt Hn, Ernest
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Marten, Neil
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Maude, Angus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Woodnutt, Mark


Mawby, Ray
Royle, Anthony
Wright, Esmond


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wylie, N. R.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Scott, Nicholas
Younger, Kn. George


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sharpies, Richard



Mills, Stratum (Belfast, N.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Miscampbell, Norman
Silvester, Frederick
Mr. Reginald Eyre, and


Monro, Hector
Sinclair, Sir George
Mr. Timothy Kitson.

Subsequent Lords Amendments disagreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Further consideration of the Lords Amendments adjourned.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Lords Amendments to be further con-considered Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT, NORTH-WEST SHROPSHIRE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

11.27 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: On 23rd November it is proposed that Ifton Colliery shall close. With this event will culminate what has been a fairly lengthy process of deterioration in job prospects in North-West Shropshire, which I believe is a subject fully suitable to occupy this brief time of the House.
I say that the closure of Ifton is the culmination of a fairly lengthy process. Its extent and nature can be appreciated when it is considered that other sources of major employment in North-West

Shropshire have all been adversely affected over the last decade, whether it is the rundown of defence establishments in the area, or railway closures, or the steady decline of agricultural employment consequential upon the higher degree of mechanisation in agriculture. Whereas railways, defence and agriculture employed just short of 5,000 people in the Oswestry area in 1958, the figure today, before the Ifton closure, is already down to just over 1,400.
The closure at Ifton, which affects neighbouring constituencies as well as mine, will probably add about 400 or 500 further people on to the unemployed register in the Oswestry area. It may be significantly less, and I would greatly appreciate Ministerial comment on this, point. It is the view of the Oswestry Rural District Council that with the closure of Ifton Colliery there is the prospect of unemployment of between 7 per cent. and 8 per cent.
This is a wholly inappropriate occasion to discuss the whole philosophy of development areas. Indeed, I should be out of order if I sought so to do. If the area does not have the consequences of development area status, there is a real need that it shall from within its


own resources be able to develop the infrastructure to attract new industry. By "infrastructure" I mean the right balance of provision in education, roads and many of those services which are channelled through the Shropshire County Council.
I have a particular request to put to the hon. Lady on that aspect of the matter. May we have an assurance that the development of Dawley New Town will not lead to a concentration of what I would call social expenditure on East and Central Shropshire to the disadvantage of the outlying areas? The Shropshire County Council itself is much exercised on this question, and I can do no better than quote from a letter dated 4th September this year which it addressed to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
Commenting upon the consequences of Dawley New Town, the county council observed:
The burdens are highlighted in the current economic climate which does not favour the normal development of services elsewhere in the county: for example, there is a marked uneasiness on the part of the Council that on the evidence of the approved school building programme for 1968–69 the county as a whole is being required to make sacrifices for Dawley".
The second matter on which I put a request to the hon. Lady concerns the question of jobs in prospect in the area. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Wales—I am grateful for his attendance here at the beginning of the debate, I appreciate the personal interest which he has shown in the whole question of the closure of Ifton colliery, and I excuse him if he is unable to stay—said, in opening the debate on Welsh affairs:
At the same time, I am very conscious that there are uncertainties surrounding the future of the coal industry in the area, in particular the proposal to close Ifton colliery. But, despite the uncertainties, a realistic comparison of the jobs needed and the jobs in prospect in the area"—
these are the significant words—
gives cause for optimism. The important point is that the jobs in prospect are not 'pie in the sky'; they are being created now. B I.C.C., Cadbury and Firestone—giants of industry—are but three of the firms which have appreciated the excellent locational advantages of the area …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th October, 1968; Vol. 770, c. 228–9.]

No one will be more delighted than I if the optimism which the right hon. Gentleman expressed is fulfilled. He has written to me stating that about 2,400 jobs for male employment will become available in the employment exchange areas of Wrexham, Cefn Mawr and Rhos. Those places are reasonably near Ifton colliery, and undoubtedly many now working at Ifton live outside my constituency and will be nearer to those exchange centres than are my own constituents. But I am not trying to make detailed points; I recognise that one must not be narrow-minded but must take the area in totality.
However, if, as the Secretary of State says in his letter, these are jobs which will become available over four years, may we have a rather more detailed analysis of when they are likely to appear? The right hon. Gentleman's letter speaks of
jobs which are expected to arise within the next four years in authorised new industrial building and in existing buildings taken over by manufacturing firms".
There is a great deal of difference from the point of view of my constituents between the likelihood of jobs appearing in the third and fourth years rather than the first and second.
I realise that an answer to a request of this kind must of its nature be tentative; it is in that spirit that I ask the question, and in that spirit I shall accept the answer. But I hope that this short debate will enable the Minister to make those two specific points: first, the assurance that the development of the Dawley New Town will not prejudice the provision of services in the remaining parts of the county of Shropshire, particularly the outlying parts; and, second, that the hon. Lady can give a clear indication of the cause for optimism, to quote the words of her right hon. Friend when speaking about the 2,400 jobs for male employment in the Wrexham area which it is expected to become available within the measurable future.
It is just under a year ago that I took part very briefly in an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More). That was the unhappy occasion of the foot-and-mouth disease which ravaged the Welsh border country and Cheshire. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate


that North-West Shropshire is an area that has had more than its share of misfortunes over the past 12 months, and will be glad of the opportunity to give both the assurances and the information that I have requested this evening.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Jasper More: In my constituency, which is also in Shropshire, we had early this year the threat of the closure of another colliery at Highley. We have managed to get it reprieved, but the reprieve is not final, and Highley, which is only seven miles from Bridgnorth, in my constituency, is likely to have a rate of unemployment comparable to that which my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) has been telling us about in the Ifton area.
It was, therefore, with some consternation that I received from the hon. Lady a letter dated 14th October about an I.D.C. applied for by a firm in Bridgnorth, saying that this could not be granted, in spite of the fact that the unemployment rate at Bridgnorth has recently been higher than usual, and is over the national average. I must tell her how very ill-received this has been, particularly because this was not the case of an outside firm wanting to come into the area, but that of an established firm simply wanting to make an extension there. I want to make the most emphatic protest against this decision.
My hon. Friend has referred to the position of Dawley New Town, part of which is in my constituency. I should like the hon. Lady to appreciate what is happening and what is not happening in that context. The letter from which my hon. Friend quoted has made clear the concern of the county council, in particular in relation to matters of educational provision and the fear that exists all over Shropshire that services in other parts of the county will be prejudiced for the benefit of the new town.
On both these issues the county council has asked for deputations to be received by the Ministers concerned—the Minister of Education and the Minister of Housing and Local Government. They have been refused any interview by the Minister of Education, and they have had no date given to them by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in spite

of the fact that in the meantime the Chairman of the Dawley Development Corporation has, if Press reports are to be believed, been received and interviewed by no fewer than three members of Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Lady should tell her colleagues that the impression created by all this in Shropshire is not very good.
We seem now to be faced with a position in Shropshire that industry, which we think should come to Dawley from the conurbation and should be promoted in Shropshire itself from industries that are already there, is being pulled in six different directions, without any real Government co-ordination. In the Welsh debate yesterday we heard about the special development areas and the development areas, and in Question Time we heard about the grey areas and the claims of the new town, and that fact that cities like Birmingham in the conurbation do not want to lose their industry at all. When we have all those five claimants for industry, one sees that there is not much chance for places like Bridgnorth that do not fall into any of those categories. I therefore beg that there may be a rational scheme worked out for the allocation of industry which will not prejudice places of this kind.
On the question of the new town itself. When Shropshire agreed to cooperate, it was, I think, on the understanding that industry for the town would be drawn specifically from the west Midlands conurbation. I was not, therefore, very pleased, about three months ago, driving one day through Wolverhampton, to find the town plastered with huge advertisements of an exhibition staged by the Development Corporation of Wales to attract West Midlands industrialists to go to Wales with all the advantages of a development area. That sort of thing, obviously, cannot help the new town. In Shropshire, we face the position that industry which should be going to the new town is directed to the development areas and industry which should be developed in places like Bridgnorth may be pushed by the hon. Lady's Ministry to the new town.
I beg that this may be looked into and that some sensible policy may be evolved for Shropshire.

11.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dun-woody): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) for raising this subject, because, as he will know, I am a great believer in regional policy, and I must say I am rather pleased that he has now joined me in this. I had rather suspected he joined—

Mr. Biffen: I do not want to be controversial, but I said exactly that this was not the occasion when one could discuss the whole philosophy of development areas. I have very defined views on that subject, which I shall be very pleased to debate with the hon. Lady on a suitable occasion, but she knows as well as I do that this is not the occasion. I could not have done it within the rules of order.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Nevertheless, I am sure that the hon. Member will realise that it is this Government's very particular regional policies which are contributing, in a very material sense, to employment prospects. It is employment prospects in his own area which worry him.
Let me deal with some of the points he has specifically raised and which are worrying not only him, but also the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More). I should say, first, that we are in some difficulty in discussing a very exact breakdown of the jobs in prospect in the exact terms he has in mind—not because we are in any way endeavouring to keep from him the exact timing, but because, as he will realise, to a certain extent the information given to us from any firm about its recruiting must be confidential.
Therefore, it is not possible for us to discuss either the details in the exact terms he has asked for about the next four years or the detail which the hon. Member for Ludlow, I know, would like to bring before the House on this particular I.D.C. application. So I hope that he will understand that I have taken note of what he said. I do understand his feelings, but it was an I.D.C. which had rather difficult circumstances attached to it, and I do not think that I can tonight go into any further details.
Both hon. Members have made a very strong case. Parts of Shropshire are particularly worried that Dawley New Town may receive social expenditure and industrial development which may go to the new town to the detriment of the rest of the county. I can say quite categorically that Dawley New Town will not get a concentration of services, leaving the rest of the county neglected.
Dawley New Town is intended to assist particularly with the problems of Birmingham conurbation. I take the hon. Member for Ludlow's point that, if men and industry are to move, some areas may appear to be more favoured than others, but it is our understanding that Dawley will not receive all the concentration in this way, but rather that Dawley itself is hoping to absorb the industries which are being moved from Birmingham, from the conurbation, and set up within the area, particularly those firms, of course, which are tied to the Midlands, and have, for various reasons, to remain within striking distance of their original sites.
The hon. Member for Oswestry was concerned that the closure of Ifton Colliery would push up the unemployment figures in his area to the region of 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. I undertook when I was just on the other side of the border, if I dare mention it, to discuss with the Ministry of Power whether this closure could be deferred for a short time. While I understand the fears of the men, without being unduly optimistic, I feel that the picture will not he as grim as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
The hon. Member himself gave one reason. Many men already employed in Ifton Colliery are from the other side of the border. As he said, the Secretary of State for Wales was quoting the number of jobs in prospect in the Wrexham area, and we feel that this is far from being a bad picture. In fact, we would go as far as to say that it is an optimistic picture, and it must to a certain extent affect the employment of men who have been working in Ifton.
The Secretary of State mentioned two major undertakings, B.I.C.C. and Firestone, which are currently recruiting. Another factory, Cadbury's at Chirk, is under construction, but no completion date is yet available. The remaining projects are not yet building, but we are convinced that by the time these three


quite large undertakings reach their employment targets there will be others starting to recruit. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Oswestry will accept my words when I say that we are talking about concrete jobs in prospect and about the near future rather than the far distant future, which was the point that concerned him. The figure of 2,400 jobs for the Wrexham area is for males only, and the total number of jobs in prospect is 3,350. This is not, in my view, too grim a picture for the future of the border country.
Both hon. Gentlemen have raised the question of schools and the fact that if too many services went into Dawley New Town they might be under-utilised. I am sure that they will both realise that this is not my departmental responsibility, but I can assure them that my hon. Friends are well aware of the attitude on this matter not only of the Shropshire County Council but of the local authorities, and they have it very much in mind.
The problem of those areas which find themselves adjacent to development areas is something which is worrying both hon. Gentlemen. The Board of Trade look very sympathetically at the question of I.D.C.s for Oswestry. No applications have been refused since 1960. I.D.C.s are generally freely available for Birmingham firms in the Dawley area, and we intend to encourage firms to move in, in order to relieve the congestion in the conurbation. We recognise that there is a problem for areas which border on development areas and which are not offered incentives, and we are as sympathetic as we can be in considering the problems that face them in creating new jobs.
The problem of Oswestry, which one accepts has faced difficulties which are bound to come in an area which has relied on traditional industries for much of its employment, and is now going through a transitional period is one that will be altered considerably by the number of factories which are coming to the border area. Within travel-to-work distance a considerable number of jobs will be available, and we feel that if we are to have a constructive effect on the in-

dustrial pattern in the area this is the way in which we hope to see it develop.
We have considered whether or not we could put off the closure of Ifton Colliery. I approached my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, and he pointed out to me that, under present arrangements agreed for consideration of colliery closures, deferments are considered only for collieries in special development areas and on the recommendation of the appropriate economic planning council. That is not to say that we are in any way unsympathetic to the difficulties faced by men who have been employed in the coal mines for many years. But we feel that the future of the entire area is one that is far from being too gloomy.
Areas which are outside development area boundaries may be at a disadvantage in attracting new industry when neighbouring places are eligible for development area assistance. This is an inevitable consequence of the policy of successive Governments since the 1930s of assisting industrial development in a way which discriminates between one part of the country and another. Wherever a development area boundary is drawn, there will be places which fall just on the wrong side of the line.
The economy of North-West Shropshire is closely linked with that of the neighbouring parts of the Welsh development area. Industrial growth and greater prosperity in North-East Wales should provide a growing market for goods and services originating in Oswestry and the surrounding area.
Without being unduly optimistic, we feel that we shall see a change in the pattern of employment and in the numbers of jobs created in the future. We do not think that it is a gloomy or dark picture, and it is to be hoped that, within a very short time, we shall be able to say to both hon. Gentlemen that many of their fears, while perfectly understandable, have perhaps been unfounded.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Twelve o'clock.